WAYS AND MEANS

Sessional Returns

Ordered,
	That returns be laid before the House for Session 2005-06 of information and statistics relating to—
	(1) Business of the House;
	(2) Closure of Debate, Proposal of Question and Allocation of Time (including Programme Motions;
	(3) Sittings of the House;
	(4) Private Bills and Private Business;
	(5) Public Bills;
	(6) Delegated Legislation and Regulatory Reform Orders:
	(7) European Legislation, etc;
	(8) Grand Committees;
	(9) Chairmen's Panel; and
	(10) Select Committees.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Roads

Lee Scott: What assessment he has made of the merits of a national road pricing scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: The initial work conducted by my Department indicates that a well designed road pricing scheme could offer real potential to cut congestion. The draft road transport Bill will seek to increase the opportunity for local authorities to introduce pricing pilots. Those pilots will help to inform decisions about national road pricing.

Lee Scott: Will the Secretary of State please tell us whether provision for road pricing will be made in the draft road transport Bill —[ Interruption. ]

Douglas Alexander: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but I did not fully hear the hon. Gentleman's question. Will he repeat it?

Lee Scott: Will the Secretary of State please tell us if provision for road pricing will be made in the draft road transport Bill?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful for the clarification. The intention in the draft Bill will be to make it easier to establish local pilots. Concern has been expressed in the House about the interoperability of technologies; we are discussing that and similar matters with local authorities. However, our intention would be to introduce separate legislation, were we to decide in due course to introduce a national system of road pricing. That is not the intention in the draft Bill.

Graham Stringer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is familiar with the statistical bulletin, "Traffic Speeds in English Urban Areas: 2004", which shows clearly that the speed of traffic in almost every urban centre in Greater Manchester is increasing. Why then is it sensible to start examination of congestion charging in Greater Manchester, rather than on inter-urban roads for which the Government are responsible and which are becoming more congested?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that characteristically helpful observation on transport publications. Our intention is to work effectively with local authorities as they develop local solutions to local problems. I have met representatives of the Manchester local authorities as they develop local solutions that work to meet the needs of the local economy. They are worried that, if congestion is not tackled in the months and years to come, it will have considerable potential to affect the economic dynamism and regeneration of that city.

Ann Winterton: Is not national road pricing just another excuse to tax the already over-taxed motorist, especially given that the alternative—public transport—is almost entirely absent in many parts of the country, including rural areas? Where there is provision in the form of commuter trains, for instance, they are full to the brim, uncomfortable to travel in, and almost unsafe. What will the Minister do about that?

Douglas Alexander: We have seen considerable improvements in performance and reliability on Britain's railways. I have to say that I struggle to understand the Conservative party's position on road pricing, notwithstanding the terms of the question that I have just been asked. On 8 November, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was interested in
	"new solutions for road charging based on usage and time of day".
	That seems to me to be wholly at odds with the hon. Lady's question.

David Clelland: In metropolitan areas, if road pricing is not to end up being just another unpopular tax, it must be preceded by attractive, affordable and efficient public transport alternatives to the car. What plans does the Secretary of State have to provide such services?

Douglas Alexander: I fully agree that, if local schemes are to be successful, it is essential that they be partnered by the sort of improvements in public transports for which my hon. Friend has campaigned for many years. I believe that the transport innovation fund offers real potential to achieve local solutions to local problems. A key element of tackling those problems will be improvement in the public transport offerings in those communities.

Chris Grayling: It might be easier to make a decision on road pricing strategy if we clearly understood the Government's policy. May I press the Secretary of State on that? When the Prime Minister wrote to the right hon. Gentleman appointing him Secretary of State, he stated:
	"We therefore need to advance the debate on the introduction of a national road-user charging scheme.... I would like you to identify the other key steps for the successful introduction of road-user charging within the next decade."
	However, at Transport questions last month, the Secretary of State said,
	"At the previous Transport Question Time, I made it clear that the anticipated time scale, if a national road pricing scheme were to be developed, would be the middle of the next decade."—[ Official Report, 17 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 715.]
	Is it the Government's strategy to introduce a national road pricing scheme, or not?

Douglas Alexander: Our intention at this stage is to advance the debate on a national road pricing scheme, while we develop learning and expertise based on the local pilots that will be facilitated by the draft Bill announced in the Gracious Speech last week. It seems to us entirely consistent to say that we should have practical experience on the ground which will, in turn, inform the national debate and the decision on whether to have a national road pricing scheme in the next 10 years.

John Bercow: That is a maybe.

Chris Grayling: Indeed it is. Let us press the Secretary of State on the technology and the learning. When his predecessor first outlined the strategy, he said that such a scheme would be based on satellite technology. Does it remain the Secretary of State's policy to use satellite-based technology to underpin a national scheme, and will it be a requirement that any pilot use that technology, to ensure that it can serve as a meaningful pilot for a national scheme?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman has on previous occasions, at the Dispatch Box and in speeches outside the House, raised concerns about the technology that would be appropriate for a national system of road pricing. For exactly that reason, we are engaged in discussions on technology solutions not only with the private sector but with local authorities to ensure that we gain experience that is scalable, so that it can inform a national system of road pricing, and appropriate given the technology challenges that we face. I would have thought that the Opposition would be keen for us to work with the private sector and with local authorities to ensure that we get the right technology in place.

Andrew MacKinlay: In the spirit of the Secretary of State's reply, will he support two Bills that I am about to introduce to Parliament, on the Ramsgate pilot scheme for road pricing and on entry to England from Scotland road pricing? They would enable him to test his technologies at £1.50 a car, which is the sentence that he is giving to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) when he expects them to pay £1.50 each time they cross the River Thames. That is unacceptable; he can experiment as much as he likes, but he cannot do it with the people of Kent or Essex.

Douglas Alexander: I fear I might disappoint my hon. Friend, but on the basis of his advocacy of the two Bills that he is proposing, it is unlikely that I will be able to support him in the Division Lobby.

Transport Innovation Fund

Neil Turner: Which local authorities are receiving money from the transport innovation fund.

Douglas Alexander: The transport innovation fund money will become available from 2008-09. However, in advance of that, in November 2005, my predecessor awarded pump-priming funding to seven areas to develop transport innovation fund proposals to tackle congestion. On 6 November, I announced to the House that three further areas were being awarded money.

Neil Turner: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In Wigan, the poor transport infrastructure is a major factor in holding back economic regeneration. Will he ensure that economic regeneration is at the forefront of decisions on exactly where to allocate the transport innovation fund in the future?

Douglas Alexander: As I have said, I have already been engaged in discussions with Greater Manchester authorities about the potential use of the transport innovation fund. I shall ensure that the points raised by my hon. Friend are passed on directly.

Ian Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the fastest growing and most congested areas in the UK is north-east Wales and west Cheshire, where the Deeside hub project is taking forward cross-border arrangements? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the fact that the transport innovation fund is restricted to England will not prevent proposals from being taken forward to ease congestion affecting the cross-border region?

Douglas Alexander: I am glad to say that we are seeing economic growth not only in one part of the United Kingdom but across it. I have had the opportunity in recent weeks to meet the Transport Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government, and I will be happy to take up the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Buses

Helen Goodman: What assessment he has made of the impact of deregulation policy on bus services.

Douglas Alexander: I have taken account of the concerns that many hon. Members have raised with me on the standard of deregulated bus services and will shortly set out proposals on the direction of future bus policy. Legislative measures will be included in the draft road transport Bill.

Helen Goodman: It used to be a joke when people said, "You wait for hours and then three come at once", but that is exactly the impact of deregulation on my constituents. Will the Secretary of State confirm that when he introduces legislation he will make provision for social enterprises, such as Durham Integrated Transport and the Dene valley community transport scheme?

Douglas Alexander: I know of the important work that such organisations provide in supporting bus travel in rural and in urban areas, and I welcome their important contribution. As I understand it, Durham has successfully bid for funding for three rural bus challenge schemes. We support the efforts of the sector in a number of ways, and my officials are happy to discuss how we can further increase its effectiveness in years to come.

Alistair Carmichael: The Secretary of State will be aware that bus use is highest among the poorest 20 per cent. of our population and that the decline in bus use has hit hardest those who are least able to afford an alternative. Does he accept that the deregulation of the mid-1980s has failed? After eight and a half years of Labour Government, when will we see some action to give local communities back the power they need to provide the bus services that their communities want?

Douglas Alexander: If I interpret the question rightly, it seems to be an endorsement of the proposals that I am contemplating. Certainly, I recognise that in the 20 years since deregulation, some communities have not enjoyed the bus service to which they are entitled. It is therefore important not simply to highlight areas where there are successful local bus services, such as Brighton, York and Oxford, but to focus on communities, not least those in many Labour constituencies, to which buses can be a vital life-line. That is why I intend to bring forward proposals and draft legislation to address the exact point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). I fully recognise that, in many local communities, bus services are a vital link to economic and social regeneration.

Angela Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the road transport Bill must redress the balance in favour of bus passengers, whose experience of bus travel all too often leads them to believe that business interests override passenger interests in areas such as south Yorkshire?

Douglas Alexander: Certainly, in many areas a free-for-all has left the needs of passengers far behind, and that is why it is important that, in the proposals that we bring forward, we recognise that there is a genuine desire for improved bus services in many communities across the country.

Stephen Hammond: The Secretary of State will know that No. 10's website on the draft transport Bill states that it will enable
	"local authorities to improve the standard of bus services".
	He will also know that, since deregulation, the average age of the fleet has fallen as investment has risen, and that fares have risen at less than half the rate of council tax. In 2006, overall satisfaction levels are increasing. His predecessor as Secretary of State said:
	"I would be wary of saying that we should go back to the pre-1986 situation."—[ Official Report, 2 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 404.]
	Will the Secretary of State confirm today that that remains the policy of the Government, and that his proposals will not take us back to the era of regulated buses?

Douglas Alexander: It encourages me greatly, in respect of the debate that we are about to have, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting on behalf of the Opposition that he is content with, and indeed complacent about, the bus services enjoyed in every community in the country. It is an entirely false choice to say that we should either go back to the state-owned and state-controlled system that existed before 1986, or accept that the present system is beyond improvement. I believe that improvements can and should be made, and it is on that basis that I shall, in due course, bring forward proposals.

Angela Eagle: While my right hon. Friend considers the evidence, before bringing forward the draft Bill, will he look at the experience of people in Merseyside? Passenger numbers have halved since deregulation 20 years ago, there has been an increase of 30 per cent. in fares, and there have been no extra bus miles. There is an unstable system under which bus routes can be, and indeed are, changed regularly; legally, they can be changed every 56 days.

Douglas Alexander: I will certainly look into that. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who has responsibility for buses, and I engaged in a series of discussions and made a number of visits over the summer and in recent months to try to ensure that we are informed; that will be the basis of the proposals that we will bring forward in due course. Tomorrow, I will meet the "big five" bus operators to discuss our emerging thinking on bus travel. I fear that the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) is not unique to her area, and that is why we need to take action. It is on that basis that we will bring forward our proposals.

Adam Price: Buses in Northern Ireland were not deregulated, of course, and they are still under public ownership. Will that successful model be offered as an option in the draft Bill for Wales?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is factually correct: in 1986, the deregulation that took place everywhere else did not take place in Northern Ireland. That should act as a cautionary note to anybody who suggests that there is a single approach to the provision of effective bus services that will work in every community. That certainly has been one of the examples that we have considered while preparing our proposals, and it is on that basis that, in due course, we will bring them forward.

Speed Limits

Richard Ottaway: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of measures taken to enforce speed limits.

Stephen Ladyman: The most recent assessment is the independent four-year evaluation of the national safety camera programme, which was published on 15 December 2005. It confirms that safety cameras continue to be a valuable and cost-effective method of enforcing speed limits. Cameras are, however, just one method that the police use to detect speeding.

Richard Ottaway: Given that the Minister's own Department's statistics show that only 15 per cent. of all accidents are caused by excessive speed, is it not time that he reviewed the extraordinary explosion in the number of speed cameras? Is he aware that millions of perfectly safe drivers are being banned for missing a limit— almost understandably, given the kaleidoscope of road signs on the road today? Will he confirm that one camera earned £750,000 last year, and is that not the real reason why we have so many speed cameras?

Stephen Ladyman: I could not agree less. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Department's statistics wrongly, as they show that about a quarter of road fatalities involve speeding in one form or another. The deployment of safety cameras has had a pervasive effect on attitudes to speed on the roads, not just at camera sites but throughout the road network. The fact of the matter is that cameras work. We took steps last year to make sure that there is no possible financial incentive for those who decide whether cameras are installed. The hon. Gentleman said that £0.75 million was raised by one camera, which suggests that a heck of a lot of people were speeding in that area. If they stopped doing so they would not pay a penny.

Louise Ellman: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the Department's proposal to reduce penalty points for speeding at over 30 mph in light of its effective safety poster depicting a child who says, "If I'm knocked over at 30 mph there is an 80 per cent. chance that I will live. If I'm knocked over at 40 mph there's an 80 per cent. chance that I will die."?

Stephen Ladyman: I very much understand my hon. Friend's position, which she has expressed forcefully many times. The Road Safety Act 2006 gives us the power to vary the number of points on standing penalties that people receive for speeding, but that does not mean that we have to do so. We have undertaken to conduct a thorough consultation on proposals for variable penalties. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to comment, and we will take account of the consultation when we make our final decision on how to move ahead.

Christopher Fraser: In many villages in my constituency, speed cameras cannot be justified under existing criteria. What are the Government's plans to enforce speed limits in those villages for the safety of local residents?

Stephen Ladyman: We have told everyone responsible for speed enforcement and road safety partnerships around the country that they should only deploy cameras as a last resort, if other speed enforcement measures are not appropriate. Such measures include variable speed signs and changes to the speed limit in areas where a lower or higher limit is indicated as a result of the accident statistics on a certain piece of road. As a result of changes to the financing of road safety partnerships, local authorities will receive £110 million extra a year, some of which can be spent on appropriate safety measures in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend continue robustly to resist the considerable hysteria of the motoring lobby, which appears to suggest that people's lives are less important than the fines that some motorists have to pay? Moreover, will he look carefully at the Transport Committee report, which provides various solutions, including the use of more enforcement measures, with effective tools such as old-fashioned policemen?

Stephen Ladyman: I have already read the report from the Select Committee, which my hon. Friend chairs. I agree with a large proportion of it, and we will make a considered response in the near future. She is absolutely right that old-fashioned road policing is not an alternative to cameras—both are needed. Cameras play a role, and can be extremely effective, but we also need effective road policing to do things that cameras cannot do.

Roads

Andrew Selous: What steps the Department takes to ensure value for money from the co-ordination of road schemes.

Stephen Ladyman: The Department for Transport recognises that overall value for money may be enhanced by co-ordinating the delivery of road schemes on neighbouring parts of the road network. Consequently, while having regard to budget constraints and regional prioritisations, every effort is made to deliver schemes to a cost-efficient timetable.

Andrew Selous: The Government are committed to building the A5/M1 link, which will require a new junction, 11A, on the M1. Building that new junction at the same time as widening the M1 would cost £14.6 million less than building it afterwards. Is it not a wholly unacceptable waste of taxpayers' money to build junction 11A after the M1 has been widened, as the Government intend to do?

Stephen Ladyman: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that the region chose to de-prioritise that road scheme and to delay it until 2013, rather than going ahead with it in 2008 as the Government originally intended. Starting the work in 2008 would have allowed us to build the junction at the same time as widening the M1. While we accept the region's advice, we have written to its representatives to say that we intend to continue with the design work and the other work necessary to allow us at least to construct the junction at the same time as widening the M1. If there is any slippage in the regional funding allocation of moneys to allow us to do this, we intend to construct the junction at the same time as carrying out the widening, for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman has outlined.

Road Transport Emissions

David Amess: What plans he has to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from road transport; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Ladyman: The Government have a range of policies across four areas to tackle carbon dioxide emissions from road transport. These policies aim to reduce the carbon content of fuel, to improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles, to encourage more sustainable travel choices, and to work with the EU to consider seriously the inclusion of transport in emissions trading.

David Amess: The Minister knows that carbon emissions from transport have increased from 27 per cent. to 33 per cent. He also knows that the Mayor of London is going to tax 4x4s by increasing the congestion charge for such vehicles to £25. In the Queen's Speech last week, we also heard about road pricing. Will the Minister now reassure the House that any increase in the taxation on motors will not just be used as a money-making exercise, and that it will go towards research and development to find alternative sources of fuel?

Stephen Ladyman: We already invest substantially in research projects to look for alternative sources of fuel. We are also working hard on the renewable transport fuel obligation, which will ensure that 5 per cent. of road fuel is obtained from renewable sources by 2010. That will present a great opportunity to reduce carbon emissions from land transport by 1 million tonnes a year; it will also be a great opportunity for the agriculture sector to provide the biomass to create that fuel. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to work hard on these issues, but the Government are committed to doing so and are already doing so.

David Kidney: One way to reduce carbon emissions from road transport is to encourage greater use of rail freight. Tesco and Eddie Stobart have shown us that there is a place for rail freight in an integrated haulage strategy. Should not Ministers be talking to other supermarkets and road hauliers, and to organisations such as Royal Mail, to encourage them to transport more of their freight by rail over long distances?

Stephen Ladyman: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are having those conversations. In fact, I spent yesterday afternoon with two executives from Eddie Stobart, and they were telling me about the success of the scheme that they have set up with Tesco. The sustainable distribution fund also allows us to provide grant aid for schemes that take freight off the roads and on to either railways, waterways or coastal shipping as a way of reducing carbon emissions. These are matters for the private sector, but we are doing everything that we can to encourage it to do exactly as my hon. Friend suggests.

Robert Goodwill: Has the Minister made any assessment of the 60-tonne, 25.25 m trucks that have recently been test-driven not only by members of the Select Committee but by officials in his Department? Such trucks are already operating on the roads of three European Union member states. Does he agree that deploying them on specific routes might well reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced by road transport?

Stephen Ladyman: I looked at this matter last year and studied the issues carefully. I understand the economic and environmental arguments for 60-tonne trucks, but I came to the conclusion that I could not guarantee that they would be restricted to routes that were suitable for them. The reality would be that they would leave the main motorways and highways and end up in rural villages, many of which are represented by Conservative Members, who would soon be on their feet telling me that it was a bad idea to allow such vehicles on to the roads. On that basis, I decided not to move forward with any further tests on 60-tonne trucks at this time.

Clive Betts: I know my hon. Friend is aware of the levels of carbon dioxide that are badly affecting residents in Tinsley, in my constituency. When he met a delegation from the area recently, he gave us certain assurances which I hope he will be prepared to put on record. He assured us that the widening of the M1 would not go ahead if carbon dioxide emissions increased as a result, that wherever possible measures would be introduced to try to reduce them, and that there would be a full environmental impact study whose findings would be available for public consultation. Will he now confirm those assurances?

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend has been vigorous in campaigning for the people of Tinsley, and specifically in drawing my attention to the concerns of schools on the route. I can assure him publicly that there will be a full environmental impact assessment. If we cannot mitigate the environmental consequences of the widening, it will not go ahead, so it is our responsibility to find ways of mitigating it. I can also assure my hon. Friend that I have noted the particular concerns of schools, and regard it as our responsibility to find an solution that is acceptable to parents and children and which will prevent them from suffering as a result of any widening of the road.

Buses

Tobias Ellwood: What assessment he has made of bus services in Bournemouth; and if he will make a statement.

Gillian Merron: The provision of local bus services in Bournemouth is a matter for the bus operators and Bournemouth borough council. They have powers to subsidise non-commercial services. We will shortly set out detailed proposals on the direction of future bus policy, and legislative measures will be included in the draft road transport Bill.

Tobias Ellwood: I look forward to those proposals, but the Minister will know that the Liberal Democrat council recently sold off the local bus service, which angered many residents. Routes have been removed and reduced. Will the Minister remind the council of its duties under the Transport Act 1985? When there is a requirement to provide a bus service and there is a social need, the council should reach into its pockets.

Gillian Merron: I understand that network changes have taken place recently since the sale of the council-owned bus company, and that they have resulted in cuts in some services, although others are running more frequently. I have also been told that later this month Bournemouth borough council will consider replacing services that have been lost or reduced.
	I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that Bournemouth has received considerable support from the Government for bus services, not least through free concessionary bus travel for the over-60s and disabled people. More than a quarter of Bournemouth's population fall into those categories. Moreover, the Government have provided some £3.5 million a year in bus service operators' grant for Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset and local transport plan funding of over £2.6 million. Bournemouth borough council also receives funding for concessionary fares through its ever-increasing revenue support grant.

Night Flights

Martin Linton: What reduction he expects in night flight noise over the approaches to Heathrow as a result of the new night flights regime and the provisions in the Civil Aviation Acts.

Gillian Merron: New night flying restrictions at Heathrow will run until October 2012, retaining previous seasonal limits on aircraft movements between 11.30 pm and 6 am. There will also be a stepped reduction in the seasonal noise quota available, encouraging airlines to use the quietest aircraft. That will result in some gradual reduction in night noise by October 2012.

Martin Linton: Many of my constituents are woken at 4.30 am by jumbos coming in to land at Heathrow. They will welcome the new regime, which will result in a reduction of about 9 per cent. in the summer, although obviously they would prefer a complete ban on night flights. Is it not nonsense, however, for Wandsworth council, the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise and others to suggest that the Civil Aviation Act 2006 will result in less noise from night flights, given that a Lords amendment knocked out the clause that would have enabled Ministers to set noise limits that would have given airlines a powerful incentive to use quieter aircraft?

Gillian Merron: I am happy to reaffirm the Government's commitment to bear down on night noise. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his immense diligence in representing his constituents' interests in this important matter, and I am very sympathetic to the points he has made.
	The Civil Aviation Act has no impact on current night restrictions, although, as my hon. Friend says, we hoped that it would make it easier for restrictions to be as stringent as possible in future. That was serially misrepresented by the Opposition. We were not trying to remove a statutory cap. What we currently have in statute is a power to set restrictions, not a duty, with a requirement that any restrictions must be expressed as a limit on aircraft movements. We were seeking to ensure, as my hon. Friend rightly said, that if better ways to set restrictions appear in the future, the legislation would permit them to be used. I emphasise again that the Opposition failed to recognise that.

Railways

Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the award of the South West Trains franchise.

Andrew Turner: What the arrangements are for the award of the South West Trains rail franchise; and if he will make a statement.

Tom Harris: The Department announced on 22 September 2006 the award of the South Western rail franchise to Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd for a period of 10 years from 4 February 2007, with the final three years dependent on service performance achieving pre-set targets.

Vincent Cable: How does the Minister reconcile the Department's claim that the new franchise will reduce overcrowding on South West trains, especially for commuters, with the company's explanation that it plans to increase the number of passengers by 20 per cent. by reducing the number of seats?

Tom Harris: I have to question that comment by the hon. Gentleman. Some £70 million has already been invested in new trains in the South Western franchise, providing an extra 4,500 seats, some of which are already in service. The new franchise will commit Stagecoach to a 21 per cent. main line peak seats increase by the end of the franchise and a 20 per cent. increased capacity on peak-time suburban trains.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister congratulate the Conservative-controlled Isle of Wight council on introducing free transport for pensioners on all Isle of Wight railway services and a 50p flat-rate fare for under-19s in full-time education? Will he find out from Stagecoach why, in its most recent glossy publication, it is unable to point to a single benefit to the Isle of Wight railway of uniting the South West Trains and Island Line franchises?

Tom Harris: In October 2004, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the new South Western trains franchise would incorporate the Island Line unless it was decided that the needs of the Island Line would be better served by a form of community management as set out in the White Paper. Since then, the Island Line has been designated as a community rail line. I said in my written statement to the House:
	"The decision on the future of the Island Line has been deferred to allow time for more extensive discussion with key stakeholders as to the most appropriate way forward, and recognising the recent Community Rail designation of the railway."—[ Official Report, 10 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 21WS.]
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take part in that consultation process.

Anthony Steen: Is the Minister aware that South West trains have to pass through Dawlish Warren on the coast of Devon? In spite of £9 million being spent by Network Rail and five full-time members of staff on site, trains are frequently stopped by high water and falling cliffs. Is he thinking of giving Network Rail additional money to bypass Dawlish Warren or of providing special armoured trains so that they can use the track in spite of the falling cliffs and the sea water flowing over it?

Tom Harris: I can reveal to the House that there are no plans for armoured trains in the South West franchise at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to contact me, I will be happy to look into the matter for him. He will be interested to learn that the moving annual average passenger performance level for South West Trains is 90.1 per cent., and that will go up to 93.3 per cent. reliability by the end of the franchise. The current level compares with a national average of 87.6 per cent., so it is an extremely efficient service.

Concessionary Bus Travel

Anne Snelgrove: What plans he has to extend concessionary bus travel for pensioners.

Gillian Merron: In April this year we introduced free off-peak local bus travel for older and disabled people. As announced in the Queen's Speech, we will introduce a Bill that will extend that free off-peak travel to anywhere in England from April 2008.

Anne Snelgrove: The Government's commitment to extending concessionary fares to all pensioners is very much appreciated by pensioners in my constituency, but is the Minister aware that Swindon council is one of several that have changed the definition so that the off-peak period now begins at 9.30 am rather than 9 o'clock? That has dismayed my pensioners, who like to get out and about early. Does my hon. Friend know of examples of councils—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough for the Minister to be getting on with.

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner for her constituents, more than 16,000 of whom benefit from the Government's policy of providing free off-peak local bus travel for older and disabled people. The decision to reduce the discretionary element is a matter for Swindon council, although I expect local authorities to consider the needs of their older and disabled residents very carefully before reducing discretionary concessions. I certainly sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mark Harper: The Minister said that the scheme will apply only to England, but cross-border travel causes huge problems in my constituency and other areas bordering Wales. What discussions is she having with colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that there is a seamless bus transport system from England into Wales and back again? That would be of great benefit to my constituents.

Gillian Merron: I can assure the House that discussions have taken place already with the devolved Administrations. I recommend that hon. Members look carefully at the details of the Bill to be introduced in the very near future.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Minister of State was asked—

Community Justice Courts

Iain Wright: When she will announce pilot areas for the community justice courts.

Harriet Harman: The location of the 10 new community justice courts will be announced shortly by the Lord Chancellor.

Iain Wright: My constituency has a remarkably sophisticated and well integrated community network, with close co-operation between residents groups and the police. On Friday, I shall chair a meeting involving residents' groups from the Dyke House, Stranton and Grange areas and various agencies with a view to tackling problems with drugs. Given the strength of my community, will my right hon. and learned Friend press for Hartlepool to be a pilot area for a community justice court?

Harriet Harman: The Lord Chancellor will announce details of the new community justice courts shortly, but I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has been doing in this area, about which he told the House in a debate in June. He is right to point out that the police and other agencies have done a great deal of work with community organisations. Generally speaking, people feel that the courts have yet to come to the party in that respect, and they still need to see how the courts are involved in the delivery of justice. I take my hon. Friend's point, and there will be an announcement shortly.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister explain the difference between a community magistrates court and a community justice court? Would it not have been better for the Government to fund the Crown Prosecution Service so that it could serve magistrates courts properly rather than creating havoc in Macclesfield with the new listing system, which is opposed by magistrates, solicitors, police and everyone involved in the delivery of local justice? I have written to the right hon. and learned Lady, but have not yet received the courtesy of a reply.

Harriet Harman: I am looking into the situation in Macclesfield and will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly, although the Government have greatly increased the resources going to the CPS. Community justice builds on the best work of magistrates, but there are some additional elements. In the Liverpool community justice centre, for example, local community organisations played a role in choosing the judge, who attends the sort of community reference groups that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) described. I believe that the community has a role in making proposals to the court about unpaid work sentences. In that way, the people who suffer from crime will be able to be paid back.

Linda Gilroy: From her visit to Plymouth earlier this year, my right hon. and learned Friend will know that there is a good relationship between councillors and the local community safety partnership. Given our track record in successfully using antisocial behaviour orders, dispersal orders and so on, will she consider setting up community justice courts in Plymouth?

Harriet Harman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work with her colleagues in Plymouth and with all the agencies. It involves not only the police, the prosecutors and the courts but the voluntary sector and local authorities. There is a strong mood in the House, and we strongly back it, that the courts, while maintaining their strong independence and judging each case individually, must demonstrate more clearly that they understand the preoccupations of the community, and deliver justice accordingly.

Commercial Court

Richard Ottaway: What plans there are for the review of the rules governing the commercial court.

Bridget Prentice: There are no specific plans to review the rules governing the commercial court. The commercial court users committee is expected to launch a standing sub-committee shortly to make recommendations for changes to the commercial court guide and for improving compliance with the existing terms of that guide.

Richard Ottaway: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the commercial court has been an outstanding success, contributing huge amounts to Britain's balance of payments through invisible exports. However, there is concern that it is not working as well as it might, and that this will jeopardise our position. Will she reflect on the answer that she just gave me and consider reviewing the rules to ensure that the court runs more efficiently? Will she in particular give attention to the length of trials, which obviously adds to the cost and weakens our competitive position?

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; the commercial court has been doing some outstanding work and deals often with complex and difficult cases. I hope that I can reassure him by telling him that at the end of October a lively symposium was held, which brought together the judiciary, solicitors, barristers, academics and others, and a sub-committee is to be set up to perform a review. Some of the suggestions made at the symposium included listing cases so that proper reading time is available for the legal profession, limiting the length of witness statements and stricter but realistic timetables for cases. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the hon. Gentleman that we keep the matter under review.

Keith Vaz: I declare my interest as a barrister, although not in the commercial court. The Minister will be aware of the litigation involving BCCI and the case brought by the liquidators against the Bank of England. She will have read the judgment of the learned judge, who was highly critical of the liquidators' misuse of creditors' money in order to proceed with that case. What lessons can be learned from that case, and can we act on those lessons as quickly as possible rather than wait for a users committee to review the situation?

Bridget Prentice: My right hon. Friend makes some important points. The BCCI case affected many people in a very difficult and negative way. Mr. Justice David Steel, the judge in charge of the commercial court, said that the BCCI case was such an unusual and exceptional case that there were no direct lessons to be learned. However, key stakeholders from the legal commercial sector will be part of the review. I hope that we will be able to identify some of those problems. It is a complex case, and we want to ensure that the right solutions are found. We could not have anticipated just how complex some of the issues are, which is why I welcome the sub-committee.

Sex Trafficking

Peter Bone: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office on the treatment of people trafficked to the UK for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

Harriet Harman: In my former role as Solicitor-General, and in my current role as Department for Constitutional Affairs member of the inter-ministerial group on sexual offending, I regularly discuss with my ministerial colleagues at the Home Office the treatment of people trafficked into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

Peter Bone: Two hundred years ago, a Bill was about to be introduced to the House of Lords to abolish slavery. Today at Heathrow airport, a person can buy a young woman for between £4,000 and £5,000 to act as their sex slave. There are more than 4,000 such slaves in the country today held against their will, suffering the most appalling violence, intimidation and abuse. Is it not time for the Government to sign the Council of Europe convention on human trafficking to help put to an end this evil trade in human beings?

Harriet Harman: The question of the directive will be addressed when we produce our action plan on human trafficking. We have been consulting on it and will bring it out in the new year. We have been taking action on human trafficking over a number of years, and the hon. Gentleman describes the problem rightly and clearly. We have to focus on supporting and protecting the victims, but we must tackle the traffickers and prosecute them. We also have to concentrate on the demand side of the sex trade, because women are being brought in for sexual exploitation, often abducted against their will. It is called prostitution but it is actually rape, and we need to look not only at the supply side but also the demand side. We should look at what is being done in other countries to make sure that we do not have the demand that leads to the exploitation of vulnerable women who are trafficked in to be used for sexual purposes by British men.

Sally Keeble: What progress has my right hon. and learned Friend made on some of the issues that came out of the successful conference in my constituency that she attended to talk about trafficking? In particular, what progress has been made in making sure that agencies liaise so that when women and children in a country are found to have been trafficked they are properly supported and their cases and concerns are properly dealt with?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for inviting me to that conference in her Northampton constituency. She had involved the Women's Institute, for which the matter has high priority. One of the WI's key social objectives is to work with other voluntary organisations, local authorities and agencies on the ground to highlight the problem of the trafficking of young women and children and to stamp it out, so progress is very much under way. I can remember the first time I heard the words "human trafficking"; the phenomenon is relatively recent in terms of its extent as one of the evil undersides of globalisation, but we have recognised the problem and are taking strong action against it.

Anthony Steen: Is the Minister aware that if a trafficked woman seeks refuge she gets a raw deal in this country? As a nation, we are not responding to the Human Rights Act 1998 and giving those women the protection we should give them. Does she agree?

Harriet Harman: I agree that protection is patchy. It is not as good as we want in all areas, although I want to mention the Poppy project. In some areas, if a young woman is referred to the Poppy project she will be really well looked after and protected and, in turn, is likely to help the criminal justice and immigration agencies to tackle the source of the problem. We want to make absolutely sure that there is good support for victims across the board, but the other thing we need to do from this country—and are increasingly doing—is send a clear message to perpetrators from other countries who want to get into trafficking that there will be severe sentences for those who are caught.
	When I was Solicitor-General I referred to the Court of Appeal a case in which the sentence was 11 years; the Court fully understood the message that needed to be sent and increased the sentence for that offender to 23 years and stripped them of their assets all through Europe. It is right that the House should focus on the issue. We have introduced new criminal offences to tackle trafficking, but we must be vigilant and we must also look at the demand side. Many of us find that difficult to contemplate, but we have to face up to it.

Andrew Dismore: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the recent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that we should see trafficked women not as criminals and immigration offenders but as the victims of a serious crime, and that we should introduce reflection periods to enable them to come to terms with being a victim of crime? In relation to the Poppy project, which we visited during our inquiry, does she agree that we must ensure that there is long-term, secure funding and an expansion of the scheme, as it provides only 25 beds at any one time?

Harriet Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Poppy project has been very useful, not only in helping the individual women whom it looks after but in working out what more needs to be done, and guiding and helping the Government to develop public policy. The Home Office says that it deals with the immigration status of victims of trafficking on a case-by-case basis. But as my hon. Friend knows, we have been consulting on that, as part of the development of our UK action plan on human trafficking, in which the Joint Committee on Human Rights has played a key part, and further information will be coming forward shortly.

Henry Bellingham: Is it true that immigration officials recently warned Ministers that every week more than 100 unaccompanied children are illegally brought into the UK? Is the right hon. and learned Lady also aware of the various cases documented by the Soroptimists, including one case of a girl who escaped sex slavery and went to her local GP, who referred her to the police, who brought in social services, who referred the girl to the housing authority, who then referred the girl back to social services? That shows a total lack of co-ordination. Surely that tragic case illustrates the need for a national strategy for dealing with trafficking victims.

Harriet Harman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position; I am sure that he will make a very good contribution in that role. He makes an important point about unaccompanied children. Sometimes when unaccompanied children arrive in this country they are here for perfectly normal and innocent reasons, such as visiting a family member, but sometimes they are not, and unaccompanied children are very vulnerable indeed. Sometimes they are referred to social services and put in foster care, only to fall into the hands of their traffickers again. The problem is incredibly difficult to deal with but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that what really matters is proper co-ordination. If a child is passed from one agency to another, not only is that difficult and traumatic but sometimes the child is picked up again by the traffickers.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to bring this matter to the attention of the House. I shall be happy to meet him to further discuss our approach to child trafficking, and I look forward to his making a contribution as we develop policy on it.

FOI Complaints

Michael Fabricant: How many freedom of information complaints have been referred to the Information Commissioner; and if she will make a statement.

Vera Baird: The Information Commissioner received 4,599 Freedom of Information Act complaints between 1 January 2005 and 31 October 2006.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. She will have read the Select Committee report "Freedom of Information—one year on". The Constitutional Affairs Committee received evidence that people had
	"waited months for the Information Commissioner to start investigating their complaints."
	In the conclusion to that report, the Committee said that her Department should be taking
	"a more proactive role in ensuring that Government Departments co-operate fully with the Commissioner".
	What steps has she taken since 28 June, when that report was issued, to ensure just that?

Vera Baird: There was a backlog during 2005, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware, and another £100,000 was given very quickly to the Information Commissioner to help him get that backlog under control. Since then he has had an extra 11 per cent.—£850,000—in 2006-07 for the same purpose, and we are in discussions with him about how to optimise those processes to speed them up.
	I was last asked questions on this subject only a little over a month ago, when it was pointed out to me that there were in particular some difficulties with health authorities. One of the hon. Gentleman's Back-Bench colleagues had sent a lot of requests that had not been responded to. Since then, I have caused a reminder to go out to those authorities in particular, that we do expect prompt results. If this is not moving too tangentially away from what the hon. Gentleman said, the Information Commissioner has announced that he is going to strengthen his enforcement strategy. I think he previously wanted cultural change and guidance to work, but now, where recalcitrant local authorities and "persistent offenders", as he puts it, in the public sector are not responding, he will serve enforcement notices and use his powers.

Andrew Gwynne: A real issue, and a cause of concern to the Information Commissioner, is that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not cover those functions formerly of local authorities that were transferred to trusts such as Stockport Sports Trust, which is now making decisions behind closed doors. Does the Minister agree that changes to freedom of information rules are required to bring such bodies into line with those provisions and similar ones, such as the access to information provisions in the Local Government Act 1972?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I think that he has made it before, and I agreed with him then, as I do now, that just because we have brought 110,000 public bodies within the ambit of this provision does not mean that we have gone as far as we need to go. There is an analogous problem with the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the private suppliers who deliver public functions, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are looking into those problems.

Oliver Heald: As the Minister knows, it is important that her Department set an example in the field of freedom of information, as it is the responsible Department. She has stressed—she did so last month—how committed Ministers are to that. So why does her Department have a worse record than any other in granting freedom of information requests, even when the information is readily available? The average rate for all Departments is 62 per cent. but the Department for Constitutional Affairs has never managed to answer even half of such requests, and in the most recent quarter it scored a miserable 38 per cent. If the Department for Transport can have a result of 78 per cent. of requests answered where the issue is resolvable, why is the DCA such a sink Department in this area? Is it not time that it got its act together?

Vera Baird: I dare say that, because it is full of lawyers, the Department is careful and cautious in its responses and it takes its time. In fact, over the last quarter 92 per cent. of all Government requests were responded to in time—they met the statutory deadline or a permitted deadline extension—and I reckon that 92 per cent. is rather a good proportion.

BILL PRESENTED

Statistics and Registration Service

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Jack Straw, Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Secretary Hain, Secretary Alan Johnson, Secretary Ruth Kelly, Mr. Secretary Alexander, Mr. Stephen Timms, Dawn Primarolo, John Healey and Ed Balls, presented a Bill to establish and make provision about the Statistics Board; to make provision about offices and office-holders under the Registration Service Act 1953; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 8].

NORTHERN IRELAND (ST. ANDREWS AGREEMENT) BILL [ALLOCATION OF TIME]

Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Bill—
	 Timetable
	1. (1) Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting.
	(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
	(3) Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at the moment of interruption or six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is the later.
	 Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
	2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
	(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	6. (1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.
	7. (1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
	(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	 Subsequent stages
	8. (1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	9. (1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	 Reasons Committee
	10. (1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	 Miscellaneous
	11. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply in so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	12. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 shall apply to those proceedings.
	13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies
	14. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	15. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	16. (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock, Four o'clock or Three o'clock (as the case may be), but
	(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.
	(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
	17. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—[ Mr. Hain.]

Orders of the Day

Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Bill

Peter Hain: I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
	The Bill is potentially the most significant for generations. It gives effect to the St. Andrews agreement with its twin pillars of power sharing on a fair and equitable basis and support for policing and the rule of law across the whole community. Those twin pillars stand or fall together. The Bill means that the vision set out in the Good Friday agreement can at last be fully realised: a Northern Ireland of equals where political difference can be accommodated, cultural diversity celebrated, division healed, and where young people can look forward to a safe, secure and peaceful future.
	Since April 1998, Northern Ireland has been in transition: from conflict to peace, from instability to stability, from economic stagnation to increasing prosperity, from a divided past into a shared future. The time is now right to complete the transition, with the local parties delivering on a stable and lasting political settlement.
	In Armagh last April, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach made it clear that 2006 was the year of decision for the political parties in Northern Ireland. I have made it clear both in this House and outside that the political process could not be allowed to become an end in itself, and that politicians could not and would not continue to be paid—now, for over four years—without doing their jobs, as if there was no tomorrow. Northern Ireland's public will not tolerate that.
	The time has come for action on restoring devolution, ending the democratic deficit and closing down direct rule. The people of Northern Ireland have waited long enough for locally accountable, democratic government. The politicians of Northern Ireland have waited long enough to take their proper place, with responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland, and to be answerable to the electorate for their decisions. With this Bill, the Government are delivering on our commitment to bring that about. It is now up to the parties to deliver on their obligations, too.

Jim Devine: My right hon. Friend will be aware that tomorrow, the Scottish Parliament will discuss the collapse of Farepak, which effectively robbed hundreds of thousands of decent, hard-working families— many of whom come from Northern Ireland—of Christmas. Surely the Northern Ireland Assembly should discuss this issue, and particularly the fact that letters were sent out on 12 September telling people that they had to pay their bills by 6 October—the week before the company went into liquidation.

Peter Hain: I pay tribute to the fearless way in which my hon. Friend has exposed the Farepak scandal. He is absolutely right—if a Northern Ireland Assembly were up and running, that issue could be raised on the Floor of that Assembly, and Back Benchers could press Ministers for action to ensure that the families in Northern Ireland who have suffered so badly as a result of the Farepak scandal could get justice.

Lady Hermon: Given that we did not have a particularly lengthy debate—in fact, none at all—on the allocation of time motion, can the Secretary of State explain for the benefit of the House, and particularly of those in Northern Ireland, what justification there is for bulldozing through this House today in six and a half hours a Bill that changes the constitution of Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: I point out to the hon. Lady, whom I respect greatly, that the reason is to make progress, so that we can meet the deadline of the end of the week. The House has just nodded through the motion, thereby giving its assent to this timetable. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have a chance to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be happy to take any interventions from her.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Peter Hain: I will.

Andrew MacKinlay: I thought that he might. He moved the motion formally, without making a speech, which I was very appreciative of. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and I, and a few others, have a dilemma, however. We want to get to the guts of this legislation, which is extremely important, but that does not excuse the Government from not allowing two days for debate—one for Second Reading and the second for consideration in Committee. The matter is urgent, but it is not that urgent. This happens time and again with Northern Ireland legislation. What is the justification for going through all the stages in one day?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is a very diligent parliamentarian—there are few more diligent—but I have already answered the point and the House has accepted the programme motion. We need to get on with devolution in Northern Ireland and to make progress, which is why we are bringing the Bill before the House in this form.

Kate Hoey: I want to take the Secretary of State back to his comment about Members of the Assembly no longer being paid after a certain date if progress is not made. Does he not think it time that we looked again at the fact that Sinn Fein Members of this House get huge sums of money? Although three quarters of their duties should be carried out in this House, they are never here to carry them out. Why are we justifying all that money, when we are blackmailing Assembly Members to get back to holding discussions in order to avoid not being paid?

Peter Hain: There has been no blackmail at all. The people of Northern Ireland have demanded that this happen. They have demanded that, after four years of the politicians not fulfilling their obligations in an Assembly, they get the show on the road, or that Stormont shut down. The question of Sinn Fein's allowances was decided by the House following a recommendation by the Independent Monitoring Commission. That was after the House had withdrawn those allowances—in fact, I think that I moved the motion myself—following another, earlier recommendation from the IMC.

Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that it was because of something that Sinn Fein did that all the Assembly Members were put out of their offices and were unable to do the work, and that no Member of this House has any right to indict them? They did nothing, but they had to take the scourge that should have been put on the back of Sinn Fein only.

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman accurately describes the circumstances of suspension. What we are concerned with now—I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman on his own role in it—is getting devolution up and running, which his party has long supported.

John Bercow: The explanatory notes refer to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, but as far as I can tell, the Bill is silent on that point. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the regulations flowing from the Equality Act 2006 will take effect in Ulster?

Peter Hain: It depends on which regulations the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but in respect of the Human Rights Commission, legislation will be introduced next week, which will cover the relevant reforms for Northern Ireland, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to inspect it then.
	As has been the case throughout the process, little is ever easy or straightforward.
	I can well understand why the parties are edging forward with considerable caution and I can quite see why feelings are fragile, why anxious party members worry about what their leaders may have accepted and why a marauding media picks away at the fragilities. The easy option—for politicians and, of course, for journalists, too—is to prise open the detail of understandings and to unnerve either or both sides with negatives. The harder option is to stick with it, to show courage and fortitude, and say that the positives outweigh the negatives by a million miles. In Northern Ireland's politics, it has always been easier to say no, always harder to say yes.
	I know that there are issues on which all sides want reassurance. Where the Government can give that reassurance, we will. Where the parties must give reassurance to each other, they should. But there is nothing—given the will to do it—that cannot be resolved within the time frame set out in the St. Andrews agreement. I believe that the will is there, but that the St. Andrews momentum must be maintained to achieve the end.
	I am not convinced by arguments that say, "We cannot do a deal at 5 to midnight, but we might do at 5 past—or with another day here, or another week there, or six months more, but let's get Christmas out of the way first". No. The timetable to devolution is clear.

Lady Hermon: I would like to take up the Secretary of State's offer of providing reassurance. Will he reassure me, on behalf of my constituents and many others across Northern Ireland, that what we are driving through here today at top speed will, in fact, bring about nominations by the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein by Friday? Can I have that reassurance?

Peter Hain: If I may say so, I fully intend to deal with that matter in just a second—in fact, precisely this second, so the hon. Lady intervened at a very timely point.
	On 24 November—this Friday—the Assembly will convene and the DUP and Sinn Fein, as the two largest parties, will indicate who the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be, come the restoration on 26 March. That indication will trigger the transitional Assembly, which can get down to the real work of preparing a programme for Government. In January 2007, we will have the 13th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission and the seventh report since the IRA declared that it would end its illegal activity. On 7 March, there will be an election in which the people will speak and on 14 March, members of the Executive will be nominated by party leaders. On 26 March, power will be devolved and the d'Hondt process of choosing an Executive will run, with Ministers assuming office taking the pledge of office. That Monday will be "democracy day" for Northern Ireland.

Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman has told us the date of the election, which is in the Bill, but will he confirm that whatever is decided on Friday this week could well be changed by the electorate of Northern Ireland on 7 March?

Peter Hain: The electorate will speak and give a mandate to their parties to support the St. Andrews agreement. That is the purpose of the election and it is why the largest two parties requested that if there were to be any consultation, it should happen through an election. There is now cross-party support for pursuing the St. Andrews agreement, which is why we intend to move forward on that basis.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State mentioned Friday 24 November and said that the DUP and Sinn Fein would have to indicate who their nominees would be. What form is that indication to take? What happens if either party does not make that indication?

Peter Hain: I have given an outline of what will happen on 24 November. I am currently in discussion with the Speaker and the parties. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to make it clear that it is important that Friday is successful. Friday 24 November was part of the St. Andrews architecture, to which all the parties, including his, signed up—I accept that they did so in broad terms. If Friday 24 November is not successful, the door to a transitional Assembly and everything that follows will not be unlocked. That is the clear position that everybody faces.

Eddie McGrady: As I interpreted it, the Secretary of State stated categorically that, on Friday, the DUP and Sinn Fein will nominate First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Is that a categorical assurance, without qualification? If that is not fulfilled, what would constitute a failure of the rubric on Friday that, in his view, would inhibit further progress in the restoration process?

Peter Hain: As I said, the two largest parties will indicate who the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be, come restoration on 26 March. I do not anticipate failure at any point in the process. I anticipate success because the people of Northern Ireland want success and all the parties who came to St. Andrews and left endorsing the broad terms of the St. Andrews agreement want that success, too. We are working for success. However, let us be clear: if there is failure at any time, Stormont dissolves and everybody packs up and goes home. That has been clear for a long time and it is clear in the Bill.

Lembit �pik: Like the Secretary of State, I am planning and hoping for success, but I am not optimistic that the deadlines that he describes are genuine. Why, when 24 November was a cast-iron deadline set in statute, which we are changing, should any Northern Ireland party be confident that the other three deadlines that he outlined in March are any more solid and unchangeable than 24 November? I accept that he needs wriggle room to make it work but, at the moment, we are discussing not wriggle room but completely flexible deadline room.

Peter Hain: I have been grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support and that of his party throughout the process, although he has asked legitimate questions, as he is doing now.
	In May, when we passed the emergency Bill to set up the transitional Assemblythe Northern Ireland Act 2006I said that agreement had to be reached by 24 November. That has happened. We had St. Andrews and the parties' indication that we should introduce the Bill. If there had been no agreement, we would have closed Stormont down. The hon. Gentleman supported that strategy and it remains. There is no wriggle room in the Bill. If any of the dates are not met, and especially if the Assembly and the Executive are not fully restored on 26 March, it will all close down and dissolution takes place. There is no wriggle room in that, and there will not be any.

Lembit �pik: The Secretary of State made a similar statement about 24 November. He said that there would be no negotiation, no change and no movement beyond that. Now he has reached a stage whereby the two parties, in some vague way, must indicate who the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are likely to be. What confidence can any of us have that the Government will be any more robust about the March deadlines given that, in my judgment, the commonly received view is that all the deadlines up to now have been subject to change?

Peter Hain: I am obviously happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions, as I always do. However, I am not sure where his last question is leading him. I made it clear throughout to the House and in other public pronouncements, as did my ministerial team, that agreement had to be reached by 24 November. A deal had to be done by then. That has been achieved and it is why we are introducing the Bill. If there had been no agreement at St. Andrews and the parties had not subsequently given it a fair wind, we would not be introducing the Bill today.
	Assuming that this legislation goes through the House and the other place and that it receives Royal Assent on Thursday morning, it will then set in statute the date for the election and the date for restoration, and the powers contained in clause 2 make it clear that, if it is apparent to me at any time that there will not be restoration at the end of the process, I can move to dissolution immediately.

Andrew Turner: I do not suppose that many people will want to vote against the St. Andrews agreement in March, but will the Secretary of State indicate which political parties opposed it?

Peter Hain: Only one party has been absolutely clear: the UK Unionist party of Bob McCartney. He has made it absolutely crystal clear that he is opposed to this entire projectalways was and always will be.
	I am under no illusions about the process. There is still work to be done. No one can be forced into government, and no one will be forced into government. If at any stage between now and 26 Marchthis repeats the point that I was making earlierwe run out of track, devolution becomes dissolution: the clock is stopped, the election scrapped. That is the reality. In that event, direct rule and plan B, with even closer co-operation with the Irish Government, will stretch into the foreseeable future. The Governments will not be chasing after the parties. We will have done as much as we humanly can. It would be for the parties to come to the Governments to tell us when they would be ready to do the deal that would restore devolution. I leave it to Members to state how likely they believe a deal would be done by the parties on their own when they could not accept the deal facilitated by the Government.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Secretary of State talks about the process running out of track. Could he give an indication to the House about when he will make a judgment if Sinn Fein fails to hold its special party meeting to endorse the police and the rule of law in Northern Ireland? At which point does he determine in this process that we run out of track on that issue?

Peter Hain: Sinn Fein needs to call an ard fheisand before it, I guess, an ard chomhairleto make it crystal clear that it is signing up to the pledge of office and that it is endorsing the terms of this legislation and the pillar that I mentioned at the beginning about the support for the rule of law and policing. It is absolutely crucial that Sinn Fein has to call that conference, and I expect it to do so.
	There is a choice to be made by the parties and the peoplenot next week, not next month, not next year, not the year after that, but now. Choices do not get easier if they are postponed; mostly they get harder.

Ian Paisley: Has the Secretary of State seen the recent statement by Sinn Fein saying that it will not call an ard fheis, or whatever it is called? Excuse me, I cannot pronounce these so-called Irish words; I am an Ulsterman. Has he seen the statement by Sinn Feinnot by the leader of Sinn Fein, but by Sinn Fein, as the newspapers have pointed outsaying that it will not call that meeting of the ard fheis?

Peter Hain: I have not, but it is absolutely apparent and crystal clear to me that, to fulfil the terms of this legislation and to fulfil the implementation of the St. Andrews agreement, Sinn Fein has made it clear that it needs an ard fheis to support it in the way forward. That ard fheis will need to be called at the appropriate time.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: When?

Peter Hain: It is a matter for Sinn Fein; but of course, it is important that Sinn Fein make its position clear.
	This legislation provides the mechanism to go forward. The twin pillars of power sharing and the rule of law are enshrined in the pledge of office that all Ministers must take on 26 March, to take office. The pledge of office requires all Ministers to
	promote the interests of the whole community represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the goal of a shared future.
	Politicians everywhere, particularly those who aspire to govern, are there not just to represent and work for those who voted for them and loaned them their mandate but for those who did not.
	In a society that has been as bitterly divided as Northern Ireland, politicians who have been entrusted with a mandate that will give them access to power have an even greater obligation to govern for all and not just for their own. The pledge requires all Ministers to
	participate fully in the Executive Committee, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.
	If devolution is to deliver good government, all the institutions of government must function effectively. Anything less than a full commitment to that will sell everyone in Northern Ireland short. The pledge of office also requires Ministers to
	observe the joint nature of the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister.
	Those are fundamental tenets of power sharing, which go well beyond the symbolismimportant as that isof two different political traditions working together in equality without sacrificing either principle or integrity.
	On support for the rule of law, the pledge of office, as enshrined in the Bill, could not be clearer. All Ministers will
	uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts as set out in paragraph 6 of the St. Andrews Agreement.
	Let me remind the House of what paragraph 6, and clause 7(2) of the Bill, says about support for law and order:
	We believe that the essential elements of support for law and order include endorsing fully the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the criminal justice system, actively encouraging everyone in the community to co-operate fully with the PSNI in tackling crime in all areas and actively supporting all the policing and criminal justice institutions, including the Policing Board.
	I recognise that the issue of policing has been contentious ever since Northern Ireland came into being, and still more so during the conflict, but we are in a very different and much better place now.

William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, as far as the Unionist population is concerned, rhetoricwordsfrom Sinn Fein is not sufficient? There must be the proof of actiona credible period in which their action proves that they support the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Certainly, one of the tests would be handing over those in their membership who were responsible for the murder of Mr. McCartney.

Peter Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that all parties, especially those aspiring to ministerial office, must support the police. Their councillors and representatives, whether MLAs or MPs, should co-operate with the police as everyone else does. That is an essential foundation for a democratic society.

Mark Durkan: Will the Secretary of State indicate whether he believes that pledging to uphold the rule of law would also include upholding and accepting the authority of, for instance, the Parades Commission? In terms of upholding the rule of law and supporting policing and the courts, will he also indicate whether the pledge of office would have any implications for a devolved Minister who might find himself the subject of grave judgment by a court after a judicial review?

Peter Hain: In respect of the earlier point, it is absolutely essential that the Parades Commissionwhich is the statutorily based body responsible for the marching season, legislated for and part of the law of Northern Irelandis respected as an institution. That does not mean that people cannot argue that it should be reformed, or that it should not change its methodology. A review of the Parades Commission is going to be undertaken. I should addand I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have made this pointthat the Parades Commission has done an excellent job this year. The marching season was the most peaceful on record [Interruption.] I accept that that was not just because of the way in which the Parades Commission behaved, but because of the hard work done at local level by Unionists and nationalists, loyalists and republicans.
	There has been no greater example of transformation in Northern Ireland than in policing, led by Sir Hugh Orde, who is recognised and admired the world over for his integrity, toughness, plain speaking and professionalism, deserving the support of the whole community, of every party and of everyone. There is increasing evidence that that is happening, shown by the rising numbers of applicants to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland from the nationalist and republican communities.
	The St. Andrews agreement also included a clear commitment, and a target of May 2008, for the devolution of policing and justice powers to the restored Executive. We expect all concerned to take that target seriously. Indeed, the Bill requires the Assembly to report to the Secretary of State before 27 March 2008 on progress towards the devolution of policing and justice powers. I want to make it clear that, once policing and justice is devolved, there is nothing in the pledge that would remove or unreasonably constrain any future Minister of policing and justice from making legitimate criticism of the police. After all, proper accountability was central to the Good Friday agreement's vision for new policing arrangements in Northern Ireland and was a core element of the Patten report's recommendations. Proper accountability, which can sometimes include constructive criticism, is essential in delivering the police service that Northern Ireland deserves. There is a world of difference between that and a failure to support Northern Ireland policing and justice institutions.
	I remind the House that, this summer, Parliament legislated for devolution of policing and justice. We want to see that delivered so that the whole of Northern Ireland can better have ownership of the rule of law and policing. That is in the interest of everyone: the old lady who is reluctant to go out at night for fear of intimidation from drunken yobs; the woman, her life shattered, who demands that her rapist be apprehended; the victim of murder; the victim of mugging; and the victim of burglary. It is one thing for republicans to explain why, for historic and political reasons, policing has been so neuralgic for them. It is quite another to turn their back on constituents who, as Northern Ireland has normalised, demand safety and security in their lives and demand that it is provided by the police.
	Of course, much of policing has already been devolved and I want to pay tribute to the work of the Policing Board, the police ombudsman and the district policing partnerships for the role that they play in making the Police Service of Northern Ireland more accountable than perhaps any other force anywhere else in the world.

Sammy Wilson: The Secretary of State quite rightly points out the magnificent role that those who are on the Policing Board and involved in district policing partnerships have played. Will he give an assurance that, if Sinn Fein is to come on to the Policing Board or the district policing partnerships, the independents who took great risks to serve in those institutions will not be taken off them in order to facilitate places for Sinn Fein members?

Peter Hain: First, it is important that Sinn Fein support all the institutions of policing, including the Policing Board and the DPPs. There is no question about that. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is one that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and his party have raised with me, too. His party, especially, has supported independent candidates. Some of them have been from his party. Those candidates have taken a principled stand in moving forward in the new era of the PSNI and have often had a rough time in their communities. There has been a great deal of intimidationsometimes threats and sometimes actual violence. The vice-chairman of the Policing Board, Denis Bradley, was attacked in a pub in Derry simply because he had been courageous and had done an excellent job on the Policing Board. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that those members who stood by the policing institutions deserve support and recognition.
	The future of devolution for Northern Ireland rests on twin pillars: if either one collapses, the whole edifice collapses. We must know that the parties want to move forward to 26 March on that basis. That is why 24 Novemberthis Fridayis important. When that deadline was set, well before St. Andrews, I said that we needed to know by then that a deal was on and that we were on track for a lasting political settlementdevolution. That is still the case. Without knowing that, there cannot be a transitional Assembly. Without knowing that, there cannot be an election. Without knowing that, there cannot be devolution. The sequence set out at St. Andrews will not be set aside. No one should see this as some kind of virility test to see who will blink first. If the Assembly has to be dissolved because we cannot move forward, it will be. I sincerely hope that it will not come to that.
	As the Preparation for Government Committee showed over the summer, meeting with all parties present for 43 sessions between 5 June and 30 October, the parties can work constructively together when they choose to. Indeed they did so yesterday in the first meeting of the Programme for Government Committee. That was the first of what I am sure will be many meetings, because it is clear that there is considerable work to be done as we move to the point where the people can give their verdict in the election to be held 7 March 2007. There is work to be done on education reform, rates, water charges and rural homes planning; work to be done on the ministerial code; and work to be done on preparing for devolution of policing and justicework to be done not, as now, by direct rule Ministers, but by locally accountable politicians.
	I am conscious that there was a range of views on how the commitment at St. Andrews to consult the people should be met. There is a case for a referendum, which does have the attraction of being a single issue question, but if a referendum were to be held, an election would follow within a year of the new Executive getting down to work. What the newly devolved institutions will need is a prolonged period of stability in the four years before the next election is due, in May 2011. For the parties to go into election mode almost from day one would inevitably get in the way of MLAs getting on with the business of government on the wide range of challenges that will face themeducation, rates, rural planning, water charges and so on. That is what the people want to see them taking charge of. Of course, the fact that the two main parties indicated that, if there was to be a reference to the people, it should be through an election, was another factor to be considered.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being so generous in taking interventions from both sides of the House. Does he accept that, by the time the DUP and Sinn Fein have written their manifestos and promised the sun, the moon, the stars and goodness knows what else, the people of Northern Ireland will be being asked to vote in an election to a deadlocked Assembly, not the Assembly that he has just described to the House?

Peter Hain: With all due respect, I do not see why that should be the case. The parties will be elected to a new Assembly. Their Members, as nominated, will take their place in the Executive in ministerial posts only after taking the pledge of office. Then, they will be able to move forward and govern together. When one looks at the challenges facing Northern Ireland and some of the thorny issues with which we as direct rule Ministers have had to grapple, one sees that it is imperative that responsibilities are exercised, decisions are made quickly and progress is made. That is why the work of the Programme for Government Committee, which met successfully yesterday and will, I am sure, have a programme of regular meetings in the coming days and weeks, is crucial to enabling the incoming Executive to get off to a flying start and, far from remaining deadlocked, to be very dynamic.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State has said several times in the course of his speech that both my party and Sinn Fein have requested an election rather than a referendum. It is, of course, true that we want an election, but Sinn Fein has specifically denied saying that it wants an election. Will the Secretary of State be crystal clear about when Sinn Fein has said that it is against a referendum and for an election?

Peter Hain: All I can go by is what Sinn Fein told me. Its representatives told me that they would prefer no consultation prior to restorationthat was their preferred option by a long way, to be fair to thembut if there had to be consultation, as I believe there must be if we are to move forward, they preferred an election to a referendum. That was their clear choice. They would have preferred there to be no form of consultation, but I pointed out that there would be consultation, so they joined the DUP in preferring an election.
	Following the election, when Ministers take the pledge of office and assume responsibility for government, Northern Ireland will have entered a new era. Between now and Marchand well beyond, I have no doubtthere will be difficulties that some will call crises and some will try to make into crises, but those can be overcome if everyone delivers on their commitments. That is what this is all aboutnot saying it, but doing it, and finding a way to work together so that future generations are not shackled by the past.
	Just last week the cutting edge travel guide, Lonely Planet, said that Northern Ireland is one of the must-see destinations for tourists. It stated that Northern Ireland was
	abuzz with life: the cities are pulsating, the economy is thriving and the people, the lifeblood that courses through the country, are in good spirits.
	There could be no greater incentive for the parties in Northern Ireland to be an active part of that. They can be, and this House trusts that they will be. I commend the Bill to the House.

David Lidington: It is never satisfactory when we are invited to bypass the normal procedures of the House for debate and detailed scrutiny, but this is one of those occasions when I believe that it is right for the House to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and to co-operate in seeing the Bill through all its stages today. It is somewhat ironic that we are being invited to repeal the Northern Ireland Act 2006, which we solemnly debated and passed as recently as July. However, as the Secretary of State hinted, the Government are in a tight spot as regards this Friday's deadline, whereby the current statutory position is that on Friday he must either restore the devolved institutions or dissolve the Assembly and cease the payment of salaries and allowances altogether. I argued consistently that the November deadline was over-optimistic; the Secretary of State will probably riposte that had he not set the November deadline we might not have moved as far forward as was achieved at St. Andrews.
	One thing that is clear is that over the past few months we have at least inched closer to an agreement. We are closer now than we were back in July. The Independent Monitoring Commission has reported that the provisionals have dismantled key departments of their paramilitary organisation and the IRA leadership is working to stop the involvement of its members in crime.
	St. Andrews was a step forward. I welcome the clear statements from the Democratic Unionist party, particularly from the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), that it is willing to take part in a power-sharing Executive that includes Sinn Fein, provided that the basic democratic ground rules are accepted and observed by all parties. It is important that we all acknowledge that that commitment from the Unionists is a remarkable and generous step for them to take, given the bloody history of the Provisional IRA and the personal bereavements that so many people in the Unionist parties and the democratic nationalist tradition have had to bear.
	However, one key element is missing. There is a gap in the framework of arrangements that would allow devolution to proceed. If Sinn Fein is to be accepted, as it claims, as a normal democratic political party, and if its leaders are to serve as Ministers in Northern Ireland, it must say and show by its actions that it supports the police and the courts of the place that it will be helping to govern. Doing so does not mean that Sinn Fein, or anyone else for that matter, needs to stop campaigning for votes on a manifesto that seeks further reforms to the police service or the criminal justice systemwe frequently have such debates in this Chamber and campaign on those issues out in the countrybut it does mean requiring that the republican movement accept that the authority exercised by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and by the courts is legitimate. It means people showing its practical support by reporting crimes to the police, by giving evidence to police inquiries, and by acting as witnesses in court casesin other words, it means accepting the basic responsibilities held not only by Ministers, but by all citizens in any normal democracy. Those are responsibilities that all Members of the House of all parties, and every mainstream political party in the Republic of Ireland, take for granted.

Gregory Campbell: The hon. Gentleman outlined the bloody history to which the IRA has subjected the people of Northern Ireland, and he is graphically illustrating the move that Sinn Fein must make towards giving support to the rule of law and the police. Does he understand that, given that background, we need to set a credible period of time in which Sinn Fein must go further than just saying that it supports the rule of law? We need to see practical examples of that support on the ground, once it has given that commitment, before we can move forward.

David Lidington: There must be both a clear statement of commitment and evidence on the ground, and I look to bodies such as the Independent Monitoring Commission and the Police Service of Northern Ireland itself to provide evidence of that change on the ground. If it is possible to achieve devolution by next March, that sort of regular co-operation with the police, constructive participation in district policing partnerships and co-operation with the Policing Board will be very important, especially if the Assembly is to be persuaded to ask the Secretary of State and the House to devolve policing and criminal justice to the institutions in Stormont.

Peter Robinson: I almost apologise for asking this question, because it is an awkward one to bowl towards the shadow Secretary of State. He has heard the Secretary of State avoiding answering, and cringing under, sedentary comments from colleagues asking him the when question. Clearly, if a date of 26 March is set, there must be a point along the road from the St. Andrews agreement to that date at which it becomes ludicrous to ask people to accept the bona fides of Sinn Fein. Does that point come at 7 March, in February, or in January? At what point along that line must Sinn Fein make that statement and that commitment?

David Lidington: I see no reason why Sinn Fein should not make it tomorrow, but I preface my answer by remarking that I genuinely do not want to say anything that will hem in the Secretary of State when he comes to make that difficult judgment. However, looking at the evolving political situation in Northern Ireland, it seems that if the transitional Assembly is to be dissolved on 30 January, and if parties are then to go to the electorate and ask people to vote for their candidates, there must, by then, be certainty about Sinn Fein endorsing policing. In practice, it will be very difficult to persuade voters to support at the ballot box a package based on St. Andrews in the absence of such a commitment. To ask people to seek election on the basis of a perhaps or a conditional promise is asking a lot. The electoral process will start to impose its own pressures on the timetable.

Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech, agree that unless an assurance is given by the turn of the year at the very latest, it will lack all credibility?

David Lidington: As I said, I do not want to impose arbitrary dates, particularly because, as an Opposition spokesman, I am not party to the details of conversations between Ministers and the various political parties, but the thrust of what my hon. Friend says is correct. We are looking for some sign of clear movement within a period of weeks, rather than of several months.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, as he is dealing with the nub of the issue. For people in Northern Ireland it is vital that there be a credible period in which to test individuals who have engaged in the butchery that has been under way for 30 years. They need to move pretty soonany time now, in facton policing, criminality and paramilitary structures in order to be credible. There is a 10-week period from today until an election is called, so most people think that that condition cannot be met.

David Lidington: The sooner that that happens, the better. In considering the points made by Northern Ireland Members, I am reminded of the draft comprehensive agreement of 2004. Both the British and Irish Governments expected that, within two months of that agreement becoming a firm one, Sinn Fein would take the necessary steps to endorse policing. In July this year, Members on both sides of the House took steps to make sure that the legislation to permit the devolution of criminal justice and policing completed its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent before the summer recess, when we expected significant moves forward by the republican movement. I am dismayed that, so far, it has failed to take those steps.

Andrew MacKinlay: From my perspective in Essex, there is an elephant trap for the constitutional partiesthe Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionist party and colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party. If Sinn Fein does not deliver in a short time, surely it faces a dilemma. It may wish to maximise its strength, but it will go to the electorate without delivering or being prepared to play ball. There is a danger that ambiguous and confused signals will be sent to the various electorates. The parties want elections, and they want to maximise their seats to show their strength, but they will not enter a coalition with people who have not signed up to the police and court services.

David Lidington: I can only repeat that the electoral timetable will impose its own pressures on political developments, precisely because candidates at those elections must decide what to include in their election addresses, and what they will say on the doorstep to the people whose support they are trying to secure. They must answer the kind of questions from electors that the hon. Gentleman suggested. It is a shame, to put it mildly, that Sinn Fein failed to move over the summer.
	The Secretary of State touched on the following point. When I talk to Sinn Fein politicians, I sometimes wonder whether they fully appreciate the nature of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I believe that much of the criticism of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was based on an unfair caricature, so it is disappointing that, even today, Sinn Fein spokesmen appear to resort to that ancient caricature to describe the PSNI of the early 21st century.
	A few weeks ago, with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I visited Garnerville, where we met a number of police recruits. All the senior police officers left the room, leaving my right hon. Friend and me alone with those new recruits. We both left the meeting inspired by a group of young men and women from both traditions in Northern Ireland who were committed to delivering modern, effective community policing to the men and women of Northern Ireland, whatever their political or religious or cultural traditions. We heard young men and women from the Ardoyne and other nationalist and republican heartlands saying that whereas their parents' generation would certainly have shunned the police and would never have contemplated a career in the police, they believed that they were helping to build something that was new, exciting and in the interests of everyone in the whole of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein leaders need to wake up to the reality of what is going on. I also hear from police officers on the ground that ordinary men and women in republican heartlands increasingly want to see effective neighbourhood policing, and they want their political leaders in Sinn Fein to lift the ban on co-operation with the PSNI that I am afraid it still seeks to impose through the threat of intimidation.

Peter Hain: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He is describing accuratelyand eloquently, if I may say sothe pressures on the ground. The paramilitary grip on many of the communitiesinvolving punishment beatings for drug dealing and all that kind of thinghas receded and has, in many respects, been completely withdrawn by the Provisional IRA, although dissident republicans are acting in a different way. The people are now bringing pressure to bear, and they are saying to their Sinn Fein representatives, I want this burglary dealt with. I want this rape dealt with. I want you to do your job and to co-operate with the police so that my safety can be protected in the absence of alternative forms of protection. The fact that those changes are happening under the rule of law puts enormous pressure on Sinn Fein, which knows that it is moving in that direction in any case.

David Lidington: I completely agree with the Secretary of State. I hear those views expressed on the streets, even in west Belfast and south Armagh, and I believe that the time for Sinn Fein to act on that shift of mood is now overdue.

Lady Hermon: In the light of the severe criticism that the hon. Gentleman has rightly levelled at Sinn Fein for dragging out the period in which it is prepared to give its acceptance to policing and the criminal justice system, and of the Secretary of State's assurances that there will be nominations this Friday, 24 November, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the DUP is jumping too soon by nominating by Friday?

David Lidington: We shall have to see what happens on Friday regarding any nomination process that takes place. It seems to me that the Democratic Unionist party is accepting its responsibilities as the largest political party in Northern Ireland and is seeking a way for devolution to be restored. It deserves credit for the moves that it has made, and I now want to see Sinn Fein live up to its frequent claim to have put the past behind it and to be a normal democratic political organisation. I understand the differences and the old battles between the established democratic political parties in Northern Ireland, but I really believe that everyone's attention now needs to be focused on the need for the republicans to deliver on policing and on support for the criminal justice system. That is the essential ingredient of the enduring settlement that is still missing.
	We are hoping to go into the Bill in greater detail during its subsequent stages this evening, and to raise various questions with the Minister. I want to highlight four areas of concern that I hope the Minister of State will be able to deal with in his response to this debate. If he cannot do so, perhaps he will be able to respond to them during subsequent proceedings.
	The first concern relates to the accountability of Ministers in part 2 of the Bill. It is important that the Government should set out clearly how that is to work. It would appear from what the different Northern Ireland parties have said and from some of the press comment on the matter that there are contradictory claims about the extent to which an individual Minister will have autonomy and to which he or she will be subject to the collective will of the Executive. When it comes to matters such as sorting out the details of educationfor instance, criteria for admission to post-primary schoolsan answer to that question will be very important.
	Secondly, I want the Government to spell out more fully what will happen if devolution is restoredif the deadline of 25 March is metbut the Provisional IRA then returns to crime. We do not want that to happen, but after the Northern bank robbery we must accept that it is a matter of more than just academic speculation. I do not think that in those circumstances it would be right for every other party to be penalised.
	Thirdly, clause 9 and schedule 6 provide for the establishment of a department for policing and justice. I have no quarrel with that, but I hope the Government will assure us that it would be accompanied by a reduction in the number of other departments at Stormont. I do not think that we need yet another hierarchy of officials and team of Ministers to add to the large number that Northern Ireland would already have under devolution.
	I also hope that the Government will look afresh at the possibility of district policing partnerships sub-groups outside Belfast. It seems to me that in limiting the number of DPPs to the number of councils, we risk making DPPs remote from local communities. We are approaching a time when there will be just seven local authorities in Northern Ireland, and those outside Belfast will cover very large areas of land and very diverse populations. Might not having just one DPP to cover the whole of such a local authority area remove effective neighbourhood participation in policing?
	Fourthly, I want to question the Government on their time scale for moving towards what I would term normal politics. I accept that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland the system of designating Assembly Members Unionist or nationalist, and the complex rules for cross-community voting, are necessary; but I hope that that will not always be the case.
	When I have talked to politicians in Northern Ireland, I have met members of both the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party whose views on questions of economic policy and general political philosophy would be pretty close to mine, and others whose outlook would be much closer to that of the Secretary of State and the Labour party. I expect the Secretary of State has found the same. At the risk of horrifying the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I will add that I have met members of the SDLP whom in England I would welcome to the Conservative party, and who I think would feel very much at home there. I hope, however, that in a stable, devolved settlement in Northern Ireland, politics will be about health, jobs, schools and the environment, and no longer about deadlines, the operation of committees and the internal rules of devolved institutions. Do we really have to wait until 2015 for any review of the current arrangements, as clause 11 envisages? Should it not be possible to bring the date forward if devolution is clearly settled, enduring and working well?

Andrew Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Lidington: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not; I am coming to the end of my speech.
	Whatever the time scale for moving beyond the terms of the settlement envisaged at St Andrews, it is time for us to make a start on getting devolution up and running. I agree with the Secretary of State that Northern Ireland needs devolved democracy that is accountable to the local electorate. I agree with him that the people of Northern Ireland, from both traditions, want decisions about their public services and environment to be made by politicians who are accountable to them, the people, and who are accessible in a way that even the best-intentioned politician representing an English or Welsh constituency cannot be. But such devolution, if it is to work, has to proceed on the basis that the same democratic rules apply to every political party and, in particular, to every Minister. Above all, it must rest on every Minister and their parties wholeheartedly accepting the rule of law and the legitimacy of the authority of the courts and of the police.

Paul Murphy: I very much welcome the Bill and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial team and, of course, the parties in Northern Ireland on the progress that they have made so far on the St. Andrews agreement. My right hon. Friend will recall that one of our predecessors as Secretary of State for Wales referred to devolution as a process, not an event. I did not share that view with regard to Welsh devolution, but I certainly share it with regard to Northern Ireland.
	The Bill will alter the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in many instances. I had the privilege of steering that Act through the House because it was based on the Belfastor Good Fridayagreement. There are occasions when it is necessary to change the way in which arrangements for governance in Northern Ireland are dealt with, and I welcome the changes in the Bill on consultation.
	When we had the privilege of hearing my right hon. Friend's statement on the St. Andrews agreement, one of the sketchwriters said that he was good cop and bad cop combined. I suppose that if I were in his place, I would have to do more or less the same thing. However, we have to be a little careful about deadlines and closing down things, or other draconian measures that might arise from the way in which we deal with matters over the weeks and months ahead. I know what the reasoning isthat we cannot go on as we are for everbut the political and peace process in Northern Ireland has been going on for a long time and will continue for a long timelonger than any of us are in the House of Commons.
	We have to be very careful not to be patronising to the local political parties in Northern Ireland and the way in which they deal with these matters. I do not suggest for one second that my right hon. Friend is patronising, but it is a danger for all Governments. After all, the Belfast agreement was not made by the British or Irish Governments, although technically in law it was. It was facilitated and driven by the Governments, but in reality it would have been a complete failure if it had not been based on the work of the local parties. Any agreement in Northern Ireland will fail unless it is based on that. It is the ownership of any agreement or negotiations that makes them successful. The two Governments could have sat down and written the Belfast agreement in a couple of weeks and it would not have been a million miles away from what eventually emerged, but it would not have worked. The two and a half years it took to create were necessary because they involved the parties talking about the issues and, above all, reaching agreement on them. In paying tribute to the local parties in Northern Ireland for doing what they have to do, we have to bear that in mind in the weeks and months ahead.
	I thought that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) gave an exemplary description of where Northern Ireland is now in respect of policing, and I agree with every word he said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made similar statements. Sinn Fein and the republican movement have come a long way and we have the Independent Monitoring Commission to monitor developments. However, it is complete nonsense for any agreement to go ahead without the realisation that every party in Northern Ireland has to sign up to the rule of law and the new policing arrangements. People sometimes forget that it was very difficult for the Unionist community to accept the changes that the Patten report brought about, as it also was for the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Catholic Church in Northern Irelandbut accept them everybody did. Of course, some people would like changes to be made, and we will consider some amendments to the Bill later this afternoon. Nevertheless, people made sacrifices for the new policing arrangementthe Police Service of Northern Irelandto work as well as it does.
	I also agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury that elections are an issuethat the closer we get to the elections in Northern Ireland, the more difficult it will be to get away from electioneering. It is true that when the comprehensive agreement was almost agreed in the winter of 2004, Sinn Fein would have signed up to the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland very quickly. I see no reason why that cannot happen again, and every reason why it should happen in order to develop the process.
	There has to be a special arrangement for the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland, because devolution there is not quite like Welsh or Scottish devolution. Those devolved systems are important, but devolution in Northern Ireland is about more than governanceit is about our ability to govern together. All the months and years spent establishing how the Assembly and other institutions were to be set up were based on the premise that we would govern together. As soon as that is achieved, the problem of devolution will be resolved, and we can get on with the business of governing the people for whom we have a mandate.
	Another consequence will be that there will be an end to direct rule, which was brought in as an historical necessity 30 years ago and should long since have gone. I have said more than once in this House that I very much regretted having to deal with education, health and social services as part of my Northern Ireland portfolio, because it was not my business to do that, any more than it is the business of another Labour Member. Labour Members have no mandate in Northern Ireland: not one person there votes for the Labour party. It is important that people there should be governed by people with the proper mandate. The longer direct rule goes on, the more difficult it will be for devolution to be accepted and to become embedded into the constitutional system of Northern Ireland.
	It is important that when my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues deal with the issues that come before them between now and the end of March, they take serious account of the views of local politicians. I have said that before, but it is worth repeating. I do not express a view one way or the other, but the agreement states that it will be left to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to deal with education. I believe that other issues could be left to the Assembly. Of course, if no agreement is reached, the situation will be different, but we all agree that there should be an agreement. If there is, major decisions on how the people of Northern Ireland live their lives should be left until the new Assembly is up and running.
	Some people believe that it would be better not to have devolution and to leave the governance of Northern Ireland to Members of Parliament here and the seven new super local authorities that will be formed by joining together existing local authorities. That is not the answer to the problems in Northern Irelandthere has to be proper devolution there in the same way as in Scotland and Wales. The Secretary of State knows my views about having seven local authorities, so I shall not rehearse them, but I do not believe that the way forward for the governance of Northern Ireland is through local government and Members of Parliament. The people of Northern Ireland should be governed by their political leaders and the parties that are represented in the Assembly. That is what we all hope and pray for.
	I wish to say only one more thing, and it is in my capacity as co-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body.

Lady Hermon: As the right hon. Gentleman was a key player at the time of the Belfast agreement and knows its detail like no one else in the House, will he give us his reaction to the Bill before us today? It will separate the joint election of the First and Deputy First Ministers, which was of course a cornerstone of the Belfast agreement in which he took particular interest.

Paul Murphy: I could, but I do not think that it would do any good if I went into considerable detail about what happened. When we looked at the comprehensive agreement, I spent a lot of time on changes to the way the Assembly worked, including the issue to which the hon. Lady refers. I know that people held strong views on that, for obvious reasons. The agreement was a long time in the making; it was the result of many late nights and through-the-nights, ending up in Good Friday 1998.
	Although I have said that devolution is a process and not an event in Northern Ireland, we have to take great care in how we make changes. I would not want to exacerbate the situation by making a personal reference to the issue that the hon. Lady raises, but parts of the agreement could still be useful. I shall give one example. The agreement saidthe people of Northern Ireland voted on thisthat if there was disagreement on the newly formed Executive about how to govern Northern Ireland and how to produce a First and a Deputy First Minister, the Assembly should be dissolved and further elections should be held, and that that process should continue until such time as the issue was resolved by the people of Northern Ireland through the ballot box. That has never been tested or tried. It is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for.
	In this House we have had Bill after Bill and Act after Act, but we still have not arrived at a solution. We have not tried the first onebut that is an aside. Today, we are dealing with another issuethe St. Andrews agreement, which we have to consider as it occurs in the Bill. I sometimes wonder and reflect on whether, if we had stuck by the Belfast agreement, we would have had a different outcome. I do not know; none of us does.
	I return to strand 3 of the agreement on the east-west relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, the devolved institutions within them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware that the parliamentary body to which I referred earlier brings together Members of this Parliament, the Irish Parliament and the Assemblies of Wales, Scotland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It seems to me that the St. Andrews agreement, which refers to the parliamentary aspect of strand 3although there is no direct reference to it in the Billshould reconstitute it in such a way that Members of Parliament from all parties in Northern Ireland are in a position to become members of the parliamentary body. I understand the problems of the past, as a result of the Anglo-Irish agreement and so on, but if the body was reconstituted and formed out of the legislation on which we vote today or in the future, that would be a good development.
	I shall conclude because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I wish my right hon. Friend and his team and all the parties in Northern Ireland well in seeking a successful outcome to the negotiations.

Lembit �pik: It may seem unusual to those who have been listening to the Queen's Speech debates that we have interrupted them for this important debate, but as others, including the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have said, we agree that the importance of what we are trying to do justifies the change in programming from what would be regular at this stage in our parliamentary proceedings.
	Some may regard Northern Ireland politics as dreary, but I prefer to regard our machinations today as a light and refreshing sorbet between the heavy courses of the Queen's Speech debates.
	I start with the debate about deadlines, which is rather important. It is clear that once again the Secretary of State wants to underline the fact that the deadlines in the legislation are cast in stone. He also made it clear that Northern Ireland's political parties should not assume that they can do a deal five minutes after midnight. However, everything that we have seen before suggests otherwise; almost every deadline in the Northern Ireland peace process has been broken, moved or abandoned.
	I take the Secretary of State back to 26 April 2006 and the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Act 2006the measure that we are seeking to alter today. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said
	he is not telling the House that, were the parties in sight of an agreement on 24 November, he would bring down the guillotine, is he? Presumably we are considering not a final and ultimate but a flexible date.
	The Secretary of State responded:
	I am afraid that I cannot reassure the hon. Gentleman about that. The Bill sets the date in statute. As I said earlier, the Government will not blink. If eleventh-hour attempts are made on 24 November to force us to blink, people will be disappointed.
	I asked the Secretary of State:
	Will he assure us that they are genuinely not flexible? I ask that because, as he knows, my great anxiety is that the Government's credibility has been somewhat tarnished by allowing deadlines to be flexible and, indeed, by occasionally ignoring them. If he wants the Bill to work, he must impress on everybody that the deadlines are not negotiable.
	The Secretary of State replied:
	I have already done that but I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to emphasise and underline as much as necessaryin flashing neon lights, if he wishes and if that is not a mixed metaphorthat the deadline is for real. The salaries and allowances will stop at midnight on 24 November. The Assembly will no longer sit, which it will be entitled to do after 15 May, and that will be that.[ Official Report, 26 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 597-98.]
	The truth tells a different story. With the best intentions, the Secretary of State has blinked and altered the goal posts yet again. I do not condemn the Government for that change, but in response to the question that the Secretary of State implicitly asked me, it matters because he has to recognise an alternative outcome from today's legislation: a new precedent for peace in Northern Ireland, whereby we persistently re-establish deadlinesperhaps on a six-monthly or annual basis, as we do with the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005so that we ensure a peace of sorts, but not the re-establishment of devolution.
	What would I do if I were in the Secretary of State's position? It is possible that I would find myself in the same situation, but the reason this point is salient to the debate is that for the Bill to have credibility the deadlines, too, must have credibility. When the Secretary of Stateor the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson)sums up the debate, I hope that we will be given some new assurance that the March deadlines are not as flexible as all the others.
	The Secretary of State's claims that the Government have not shifted the goal posts, or shifted the deadlines again, may seem credible to him, but everybody knows that the Government have renegotiated the deadlines because they think that is right for the peace process. I stress again that I do not condemn the Secretary of State for that decisionthe shadow Secretary of State made the point that he, too, might have found himself in the same positionbut the Government must have a strategy to ensure that the provisions we pass today will not be subject to further modification next year.

Peter Hain: I do not want to keep labouring the point. The point about the previous phase of this process was that 24 November was a real deadlineit was a real deadline. If we had not had an agreement to move it forward, we would have closed it down; there is absolutely no question about that. As the hon. Gentleman very well knowsI make this point to emphasise the point that he is makingthese deadlines are set in statute. The last legislation did not specify an election date; it did not specify the restoration of an Executive. It said that there had to be progress, there had to be an agreement, in order to get a deal by 24 November. That was very clear. This legislation says that it is devolution or dissolution by 26 March. In resisting amendments on clause 2, I shall make that absolutely clear again.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making that clarification. Perhaps he might wish to give an assurance before the House that there will be no intention whatsoever of the Government coming back again with emergency legislation, fitted in in a rush, to make the March deadlines, which he outlined in his opening speech, into April or May or October deadlines.
	I do not want to see failureI do not want to see the collapse of the peace processbut I do feel that what we are almost planning for by default is a situation where those parties in Northern Ireland that are keen to resist setting up some sort of power-sharing arrangement

Sammy Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit �pik: I will in a moment.
	I am thinking specifically of the DUP. We may end up giving those parties some reason to believe that they will be able to carry on playing this Government for new deadlines, for new extensions, in such a way that we end up living with the precedent of indefinite extensions to deadlines on a regular basis.

Mark Durkan: First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, as I do, that the apparent slippage that he is talking about by the Government will actually be sourced in the slipperiness of some of the political parties involved in the process. Does he also recognise that there is slippage already on the St. Andrews agreement? The Programme for Government Committee was to meet on 17 October. It did not meet until yesterday, 20 November. The St. Andrews agreement said that legislation would be introduced here, in November,
	once parties have endorsed the agreement and agreed definitively to restore the power sharing institutions.
	We did not hear such an endorsement from parties. Instead, we got Vicky Pollard: Yes but no, butnot our fault, see! Also, we had an indication on Friday of who will be First Minister and Deputy First Minister, not nominations as set out in the St. Andrews agreement.

Lembit �pik: What we hear now is the frustration of other parties, who are not Sinn Fein or the DUP, but who feel that the change to deadlines is being made expediently and explicitly to accommodate the needs of those two parties. There is no need to be a psephologist to understand the play for political advantage that will necessarily be entailed by the announcement of another election. However, my worry is that while the Government are eager to accommodate the two large parties in Northern Ireland, they begin to cause resentment among the smaller ones, the overwhelming majority of whom have been both loyal and allied to the peace process. For that reason, I ask the Minister to consider the warning signs that we see alreadyfor example, the credible period of testing that is being requested by the DUP in regard to Sinn Fein's genuine commitment to policing. It is very easy to envisage, in the run-up to March, a statement by the DUP, saying Of course we want to see the restoration of the Assembly; we are even willing to work with Sinn Fein to achieve it, but you really must give us another six months to make sure that Sinn Fein is credible and serious about its commitment to policing.

Iris Robinson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why he was not so exercised at the time that Sinn Fein-IRA failed to make the deadline for decommissioning in 2001?

Lembit �pik: Well, I was not happy about that either. The fact of the matter is that, as I said before, in the real world of Northern Ireland politics, deadlines have shifted all the time. Let me stress again: I am not condemning either the DUP for maximising the opportunity for itself, or the Minister for trying to get the right answers. but I am suggesting that the Government need to have an alternative strategy that ensures either that these deadlines are genuinely bindingI doubt that they areor, alternatively and more probably, that whatever they intend to do in March, if once again faced with an impasse, will lead to a genuine improvement in the chances of the restoration of the Assembly.
	The Secretary of State said something today that concerned me, namely, that he wished to be given an indication of which individuals Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party would nominate, but he was not able to give us clarity about what form that indication might take. Will it be enough for a press release to be issued by the DUP and Sinn Fein? Will they just need to make a telephone call to the Northern Ireland Office? That is one of the reasons why I feel that slippage is being allowed to come into a process that cannot afford to have slippage. It is for such reasons that I believe that the Government must take much more seriously the danger in the precedent they have set by undermining the credibility of their own, apparently not so binding, deadlines.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman is right to be cynical about so-called unbreakable deadlines set by this Government. Last weekend, at least one DUP Member of Parliament was briefing the political correspondent of  The Sunday Times. He was not named, so I will not risk attempting to guess who it was. [Hon. Members: Go on. Go on.] DUP Members can come out and canvass with me at any time. That DUP Member told  The Sunday Times that the 26 March deadline lacked credibility, so the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) is spot-on about Government deadlines.

Lembit �pik: To sum up on the deadlines question, my concern is not so much that the deadlines lack credibility in the eyes of certain individuals and parties, but that moving the deadlines presents opportunity, and that that opportunity is in the interests of the parties rather than of the process. I would, of course, rather see the breaking of deadlines than the breaking of bodies in Northern Ireland, and to that extent there are expedient reasons for breaking deadlines, but I would like the Government to say in this debate why the deadlines now under discussion are more credible than previous ones.
	The St. Andrews agreement has the potential to bind the DUP to a commitment to assume power alongside Sinn Fein, and also to bind all parties, including republican parties, to a commitment to policing and the rule of law. However, it is still far from clear to me that those parties are truly prepared to rise to that challenge.
	There is significant popular demand for the restoration of the political institutions in Northern Ireland, especially because decisions made in Westminster on behalf of Northern Ireland have, on many occasions, been universally opposed on a cross-party basis in Northern Ireland. The agreement gives some hope that the demands for restoration will be met. A road map is now set out in respect of the institutions and how the Good Friday agreement can be restored. A series of small steps can now be taken, as opposed to one large leapbut for success to be achieved, the DUP and Sinn Fein must deliver.
	Crucially, it has now been established that the institutions of the agreement can be modified provided that the modifications are consistent with the agreement's underlying fundamental principles. Some of the institutional changes made to the Good Friday agreement are positive, as are some of the changes to public policy. Nevertheless, I have grave concern about some aspects of the St. Andrews agreement as they risk breaking some of the principles of the original agreement. In particular, I do not believe that we have yet had a process where mutual commitments are clear, ambiguities have been removed and shared understandings exist. There is a danger that a fragile process could easily be broken when difficulties arise as a result of intentional or unintentional misinterpretation of the contents of the agreement and its implementation.
	The St. Andrews agreement addresses only issues and priorities placed on the table by the DUP and Sinn Fein. The wider range of changes to the institutions, public policy priorities and measures required to build a sound future have yet to be addressed. For example, why are some public policy issues listed in annexe B of the St. Andrews agreement, whereas others are not? Why does the Bill require any new Executive to address some policy issues but not others? What is the basis for requiring specific action on poverty and language issues but not on, for example, a shared future, equality or victims' matters?
	What was the rationale for these selections? Indeed, why are the Government imposing such statutory duties on the Executive at all? Should it not be up to the Executive to decide whether their priorities are promoting minority languages and equality, dealing with poverty or promoting the shared future agenda? It seems like a random list, or a list built out of expedience, following negotiations with a very limited number of parties and individuals.

Peter Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that one of the duties imposed on the institutional review committee is to look at mandatory coalition, which was the chief issue raised by his party's sister partythe Alliance party in Northern Irelandbut not the chief issue raised by either Sinn Fein or the DUP?

Lembit �pik: The majority of the contents of the list that I outlined earlier has in my judgment been determined by talks between Sinn Fein, the DUP and the Government. I fully accept that the DUP may claim to see things differently, but I can only say as I see. I have repeatedly made the point in this Chamber and elsewhere that the Government need to be inclusive on a cross-party basis. Other interest groups and parties have been frustrated at the Government's tendency to fixate on the two parties that they are most desperate to bring together. That tendency is understandable, but the Government run the gauntlet of turning off allies who, in my judgment, are very important to the Assembly's successful restoration.
	Let us consider the example of languages. Although the Irish and Ulster-Scots languages are important, it is not at all obvious that they are the most important languages in Northern Ireland, given that a very significant proportion of people there speak Chinese. But obviously, because the Chinese lobby is not salient to the peace process, it has been excluded in the legislation. We are also concerned that the process is aimed primarily at producing a quick fixat doing little more than what is perceived as necessary to achieve the restoration of the suspended institutions in a tactical way, without addressing the deeper and wider problems that have been identified in the agreement, or neglected in the past eight years.
	One of my main concerns is power sharing, which was already weak under the Good Friday agreement, as evidenced by the poor relationship between the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party when they were in charge. Although some minor improvements have been made, they are insufficient to take into account the increased political polarisation and the ascendancy of the DUP and Sinn Fein into what is necessarily likely to be a fractious environment. The removal of the need for any vote for either the joint election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, or for the Executive as a whole, is a major flaw. The need for governing parties formally to recognise each other's mandates and the legitimacy of their share of power and responsibility has been undermined. That simply entrenches the divisions, rather than reducing them.
	There is also a danger that the only way that the DUP and Sinn Fein will be able to operate or co-exist within the same Government is through creating more and more separation. That seems to be the subtext. At present, the DUP and Sinn Fein are not really talking to each other in any formal way, so it is a big leap to see them effectively running a regional Government in partnership. It might be possible for parties to co-exist within the same Government, but it appears that this legislation will achieve that by ensuring that they can co-exist without having to deal directly with each other. Rather than Ministers working together, Northern Ireland could end up with government by memorandum, with civil servants acting as messengers between various Ministers who are not prepared to talk to one another, and who are not required to do so by the system.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am truly bewildered by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The flaw of the old systemand we know this happenedwas that it was possible for members of the Executive not to attend the meeting of the Executive. Under this system, they have to attend and participate. Although there is not collective Cabinet responsibility in the Westminster mould, collegiality is entrenched in this system. Under it, matters can be discussed exhaustively by the Executive, to the benefit of everybody. Surely that is a step forward.

Lembit �pik: The theory sounds great, but when we consider the amendmentsat which point we can talk in more detail about my and other people's concernswe will we see that, in fact, this system entrenches the opportunity for Ministers to operate on a silo basis, without having to share collective decision-making responsibility. I suggest that we discuss the issue in more detail when we consider the amendments.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that as that system works pretty well for the Government in Westminster, it should work okay in Stormont as well?

Lembit �pik: When the Liberal Democrats take power in 2009, many things are going to changeand that will be one of them.
	The Government have also missed an opportunity to bind all parties into a firm commitment to build a shared future in order to counter the tendencies to separation. While we welcome the commitment to a shared future within the proposed pledge of office, I am not convinced that it will be sufficient to counter the separatist tendencies within the new structures. A short-term fix to restore devolution may be superficially attractive but, particularly if it is based on tactical rather than strategic considerations, it will not really secure long-term peace. More general flaws within the Good Friday agreement as established and operated include institutionalised sectarianism, the politics of them versus us over control of territory and resources, the failure of moderation and accommodation to be incentivised, and entrenched inter-ethnic competition that rewards ethnic outbidders.
	My response to the question posed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is that we need to address the four key issues, and our amendments will be designed to do so. If the Government go down their current path, the problems are, in my view, set to get worse. There are also inherent difficulties and dangers in the Government focusing almost exclusively on expediency and tactical considerations in order to secure some sort of a peace and a restored Assembly.
	The lack of inclusivity will bring a number of negative consequences. It limits the number of ideas placed on the table, risks missing certain aspects of the process that need to be addressed, removes the ability of other parties to put more pressure on the recalcitrant parties and focuses on the most negative parties, to some extent enabling them to reinforce their position by holding the overall political process hostage to fortune. Crucially, it removes any sense of collective ownership of the outcomes and it is important to note that where the Government focus only on two parties, the other parties feel no ownership of the results, which risks them being rejected.
	It is not realistic to restrict all meaningful discussion and evolving documentation to two parties alone, so I suggest that the Government reflect on how they arrived at this legislation and think seriouslyeven at this late stage before implementation, which will unquestionably go throughabout a further consultation process with the parties not directly responsible for creating the wish list that I have described.
	Finally, with those reservations, it is obvious that we will still have to pass the legislation as there is no sensible alternative before us. However, when we discuss somewhat esoterically whether the proposals can work, it is important to note that some of the prime architects who will decide whether it works or not are in their places in the Chamber right now. They have the power to decide whether a power-sharing Assembly will work. Sinn Fein, of course, is not here and, as has been made abundantly clear, it is going to have to play ball, especially over policing. There is no space to mess about. Sinn Fein needs to provide some confidence that it is serious about democracy; otherwise democracy will be compromised.
	Let us remember the stakes. With respect to all the legislation passed through statutory instrument without amendmentcovering everything from water charges and housing rates to tuition fees and changes to the education systemwe need to remember that if it is not fixed in Northern Ireland, it will be enforced in Westminster. For the citizens whom Northern Ireland politicians represent, the stakes are indeed very high.
	In supporting Second Reading, it is more an act of hope than expectation that the deadlines will be made binding. As it stands, there is every reason to think that it will buy us more time to make it work, but I also believe that we should regard the Bill more as a lifeline for peace than as a deadline for devolution.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I advise the House that 14 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. The time available is limited, so I would appreciate it if they thought about keeping their speeches brief in order to achieve maximum participation.

Mark Durkan: The Bill is designed to implement the St. Andrews deal, and the SDLP has reason to welcome many aspects of it. The deal is essentially about getting all parties to accept the two core ethics of the Good Friday agreement: the requirement for an inclusive democracy and the requirement for a lawful society. It is about getting the DUP to accept power sharing under the Good Friday agreement and challenging Sinn Fein to accept policing under that agreement. In short, it is about implementing the Good Friday agreement.
	The deal is about getting Sinn Fein and the DUP to do what they should have done years ago, not only under the Good Friday agreement, in accepting the opportunities of power sharing in the north, co-operation between north and south and a new beginning for policing. Those decisions could have been made nearly 33 years ago when we had the Sunningdale agreement. If everything works out, and institutions are restored next year, Sinn Fein and the DUP will be in government together in what is effectively Sunningdale digitally remastered.
	Some of us have paid a price in the process for our generosity, tolerance and patience. Our mistakes can be counted in lost seats. However, other mistakes that other parties made consistently in opposing power sharing, north-south structures and a new beginning to policing can be measured in lost years, lost opportunities and, tragically, lost lives.
	We welcome the DUP to the threshold of accepting power sharing, and Sinn Fein to the threshold of accepting the new beginning to policing. However, at St. Andrews we were struck by the fact that spokespersons for the DUP said, We have never had a problem with power sharing as such, and the president of Sinn Fein said, We have never had a problem with policing as such. One is reminded of the observation that was made in an American context, that in politics, irony is just hypocrisy with panache.
	The Bill contains some welcome provisions, which the SDLP sought. Some undo much of the damage that was unnecessarily conceded in the proposed comprehensive agreement in 2004. Some were lacking from the draft clauses that the Secretary of State published last month before we went to St. Andrews. Those draft clauses aimed to implement the failed Sinn Fein-DUP comprehensive agreement.
	We welcome the fact that the right of all parties to be included in government is clearly respected and protected in the Bill, as it was not under the comprehensive agreement. We welcome the fact that the right of parties to make ministerial appointments without vetting and without veto is protected, as it was not under the comprehensive agreement. We also welcome the fact that some of the unnecessary restrictions on the north-south agenda have been lifted.
	Above all, we welcome the sunset clause for the changes. That means that if the DUP does not go into government in March, the amendments to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in part 2 will be automatically repealed. We sought that sunset clause because we did not want the DUP to get the Bill passed, bank it and then refuse go into government, for whatever reason, with all the other parties, and come back for further legislation in future. Too much of that has already happened in the process, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said. The tragedy of the process is that what gets rewarded gets repeated, and because people get rewarded for putting things off and holding things back, they repeat the trick and come back for more, on top of the failure that they have created.
	All the changes that I have outlined are positive. The SDLP sought them, and they are welcome. The Bill contains other welcome provisions such as the repeal of the suspension legislation. I hope that the Minister of State will tackle in his winding-up speech some other welcome aspects of the St. Andrews agreement for which the Bill does not provide, and perhaps give us some idea of how and when the progress that the Government have promised on them will be made.
	The Bill also contains some serious defects. We did not succeed in mitigating all the damage that was done in the comprehensive agreement or some of the other side deals that the Governments made in the process. Of course, an obvious defect is the question of how the St. Andrews deal will be endorsed. The Government have chosen election, rather than a referendum. So this deal, as a way of implementing the Good Friday agreement, will have no clear mandate of its own. Unfortunately, as some of the debate today has indicated already, it does not even have a clear meaning of its own. There are clear presumptions and understandings about when Sinn Fein will move on policing, which are not written into the deal or into the legislation, and Members still cannot get answers here about what the Government's presumptions are in that regard.
	Instead of the public having a clear chance to endorse a clear dealthe Government would have been able to set the terms of the referendumall the political parties will go into an election with their own manifestos and claim their own different mandates afterwards. It is a fairly safe predictionI am sure that I am not putting ideas into their headsthat those in the DUP will put preconditions for restoration into their manifesto. For instance, they will say that they will impose a fixed time limit on the current power-sharing arrangements of inclusion by d'Hondt. No doubt, they will have demands about the outcome of the parades review that the Secretary of State referred to.
	Of course, those in the DUP will handcuff themselves in relation to when the devolution of justice and policing will happen. We have seen evidence of that since the St. Andrews agreement. They will do their usual trick of saying, We're handcuffed to this sort of hard-line manifesto, and the rest of you are stuck with it. Given that the Secretary of State has spent the past year and a half telling the rest of us that we have to concede all sort of changes in the agreement to the DUP because of its mandate, of course those people believe that an increased mandate will give them increased leverage for those changes. I assure the House that I have not been wrong yet in any of my predictions about the difficulty that the Government's approach has created. Of course the dangers do not end therenor, I regret, does the problem of new vetoes.
	With the changes to the operation of the institutions and decision-making arrangements under some of the provisions in the Bill, there is a danger of unworkable government. Some of the changes invite bad politics and could guarantee bad government, with tit-for-tat vetoes by Ministers over one another. That has come about because the DUP has peddled the myth that Ministers in the devolved Administration could do just what they liked, and there was absolutely no collectivity or scrutiny. That is untrue, given that anything serious had to be passed by the Assembly, just as it would have to be passed anywhere else, and that any expenditure had to be authorised in the budget and through the Department of Finance and Personnel.
	New safeguards are provided if any Minister breaches the ministerial code or an Executive decision. Those safeguards were provided a number of years ago precisely to protect against some of the concerns that people have mentioned, but the Bill goes further and also provides new, unnecessary and dangerous provisions. Clause 5 imposes a duty on Ministers to abide by the ministerial code and provides that a Minister has no authority to take any decision against it. That might sound attractive and reasonable, but it is unnecessary, unworkable and dangerous.
	First, that provision is unnecessary, since we already have mechanisms to ensure collectivity and accountabilityI have just mentioned some of themand we have proposed sensible improvements to them. Secondly, it is dangerous, as it will encourage Ministers not only to veto one another, but possibly to sue one another. Thirdly, it could cause gridlock and deadlock, with Ministers bringing insignificant decisions to the Executive for fear that the courts might otherwise strike them down.
	Fourthly, that provision could be exploited by vested interests, which have a whole raft of new procedural grounds to challenge ministerial decisions because of the ministerial code's statutory basis. Those grounds would never be tolerated in any other Government. Direct rule Ministers have been taken to court and judicially reviewed just about public consultation on a number of issues, so let us think how ripe for judicial challenge things will be for people who want to hold up and challenge the Government if they have the ministerial code as a whole new field of play to take to the courts. Fifthly, all this bad politics and bad government will punish the public. How efficient is that? It is not good government, and the Government would not legislate for it here.
	Ministers know that a lot of that is nonsense. The principle, however, as in so much else, is to accept whatever it takes to get the deal. If Sinn Fein and the DUP want it, that is what we must do. If parties sense that the Government are desperate, they keep taking more and more, and asking for more and more. The possibility of bad government does not worry the DUP. It will be happy to have those problems created, as it will say that they are all the fault of inclusion, d'Hondt and so on, and that power sharing is the problem, not the new litany of vetoes that it is picking up in the Bill. It likes the idea of having endless vetoes over other Ministers. When the DUP gets vetoes, it does not just use them, it abuses them. Giving vetoes to the DUP is like asking Attila the Hun to mind one's horse.
	We see that in relation to the devolution of justice and policing. In the failed 2004 Sinn Fein-DUP comprehensive agreement, it was conceded by Sinn Fein that the devolution of justice could come about only if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister proposed that that would happen. Of course that gave the DUP, in the post of First Minister, a clear veto. That was provided for by the House in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, which also provided that parallel consent was essential for devolution of justice and policing, and that that double consent was needed not just for devolution of justice and policing but also for the form of devolution of justice and policing. The DUP therefore ended up with the so-called triple lock. When that Bill passed through the House, we warned that the DUP would abuse those vetoes. Meanwhile Sinn Fein was doing handstands on the basis that the legislation was sealing the devolution of justice and policing and was the missing piece of the jigsaw.
	What, however, have people found out in recent weeks? The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) has said that there will be no devolution of justice within a political lifetime. Only yesterday, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) stated that the DUP would make sure that there was no possibility of a Sinn Fein Justice Minister in his lifetime, pure and simple. They made those assertions on the basis of already having the triple lock. That is how the DUP uses vetoes, and that is why we are proposing amendments that would try to unlock some of the triple lock.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not the position of the Democratic Unionist party. What my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said yesterday was that the issue was community confidence, and that it was necessary to have sufficient confidence in the community before devolution of policing and justice could happen. He also said that Sinn Fein had a major role to play in building that confidence, and that at its current pacedragging its feet even on reaching a decision on policing and justiceseveral lifetimes could pass before we reached the objective. The problem is Sinn Fein's, not ours.

Mark Durkan: That intervention shows, as I pointed out previously, that Sinn Fein and the DUP give each other vetoes in relation to policing, and the devolution of justice and policing. Sinn Fein's position is that it will not move on policing, it will not accept the PSNI and it will not take its places on the Policing Board, unless and until the DUP agrees a date for the devolution of justice and policing. It is clear, however, that the DUP has a whole variety of preconditions for the devolution of justice and policing, over an unspecified testing period, including an unspecified indication of satisfaction or confidence on the part of the public.
	That brings us to the nub of the matterthe huge contradiction at the heart of what we hope to do. In the St. Andrews deal, the two Governments have told us that they believe that they have a basis for ensuring that Sinn Fein moves on policing and that the DUP moves on restoration of the institutions. If the DUP does not give an indication of a date, however, that will be Sinn Fein's excuse for not moving on policing. If Sinn Finn failed to move on policing on the basis that the DUP already has the triple lock on the devolution of justice and policing, Sinn Fein would blame the DUP for the failure of the St. Andrews agreement, and the DUP would blame Sinn Fein. That is why those parties have given each other vetoesso that they can blame each other.
	The Government need to address that question with a bit more robustness. I do not doubt that the DUP has some neck in pushing these things as it has. I certainly do not doubt that Sinn Fein has neck in how it pushes things. We need to see a little more backbone from the Government in dealing with this issue, rather than their just pretending that the problem does not exist, or that somehow we will go past it.
	There are other issues in the Bill that my hon. Friends will touch on as well. Not least, we disagree hugely with what is provided in respect of education. We do not believe that a veto should be created on the opportunity for equal education arising from ending selection. It could be a poor start to a restored Assembly if the first item of business involved failing to confirm the ban on academic selectiononly to be in a position where we could not provide for anything in place of the 11-plus. We would then end up with the worst possible combination of the unfair, the unknown and the unworkable in making future provision for secondary education.
	When we are in those difficulties, no doubt it will all end up being called Hain's hames. People will be able to blame everybody else for that gridlock. That is why we want to get away from the vetoes, the side deals and the go-slows. We want to see the Government push the pace of progress and put it to parties to accept a deal that has been approved by the people. That is the way to make progressnot to keep putting things off or demanding extras, and not through side deals. Straightforward up-front agreements, not side deals, are the way forward. Parties need to be put under pressure as far as those clear fundamental principles are concerned. I regret that, rather than putting parties under clear pressure and giving the public clear answers, too often the Bill panders to parties.
	We have misgivings about the Bill, but we know the exigencies of the timetable. We want to see the nominations for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on Friday, and we know that that depends on the passage of the Bill. That is why we will not divide the House on the Bill, or on some of the important issues that we are raising in amendments. We do not want to give anybody any excuse. However, when the Government are getting that degree of tolerance and understanding from other parties in the House, they need to make it clear that they will hold the parties that need to stand firm on living up to this agreement to that requirement.

Ian Paisley: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am a man of plain speech. People know that I try to keep my word as my bond. I am not interested in any word games tonight. I am interested in peace in the country that I lovepeace for its families and its children. When I spoke at St. Andrews I said:
	The DUP has been consistent in our demand that there must be delivery from the republican movement before devolution can be restored in Northern Ireland. The days of gunmen in government are over.
	I have no interestneither in relation to my members nor in relation to the people I represent: the majority of the Unionist population in Northern Irelandin deviating from the course of action that I have taken. I believe that my policy can and will lead to a better Northern Ireland, where peace and justice take the place of terror and strife, when true democracy reigns. For that to happenfor me as the leader of Unionism to enter a Government under the arrangements identified at St. Andrewsthere must be full and unequivocal support for the rule of law, the Police Service and the courts by all Members.
	I was rather alarmed to hear the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) blaming the Democratic Unionist party, as if it did not live up to what it said. He will see in the coming monthseven in a few days, on Fridaywhether we live up to it or not. He will get his answer. I will not move my party in any shape or form into any power-sharing arrangements until the circumstances are right. All the parties in Northern Ireland must agree with this. Sinn Fein must support the Police Service, the royal courts of justice and the rule of law. At this stage, it has not done so, and the hon. Gentleman referred to that. Sinn Fein has said that until it gets a date for the devolution of justice, it will not budge on the timing of support for the police. Sinn Fein must support the police now, and the people must see that it supports the police.
	I am not jumping first or last. Other politicians jumped first: they broke their arms and their legs and are now deserted. At 80 years of age, I have no intention of breaking my legs or my armsI am going to hold on to them. Sinn Fein, at last, has met the resistance of the democrats of Northern Ireland, including many Roman Catholics, who have been in touch with me and said, Big man, you're right. We must have freedom for the police to function in our areas. I listened to a radio broadcast in which a man said that he had been a republican all his days on the Falls road, but that now he wanted the police to come into the Falls road, because there was no peace for the people unless the Police Service came there. From all over Ulster there is a cry: let democracy rule and let each party have one thing in commonthat they support law and order.

Lady Hermon: In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, will he confirm whether his party will be nominating on Friday? The Secretary of State has said that he is confident that there will be nominations. Will the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) confirm whether the Secretary of State is correct?

Ian Paisley: I invite the hon. Lady to come. I will get her a free pass and a cup of tea, and perhaps a hot cross bun. The people of Northern Ireland know that I do not say one thing in this House and another outside.
	I will not accept Sinn Fein paying lip service to the concepts of the St. Andrews agreement but continuing in crime and not supporting the police and the authority of the Crown forces. In all those matters, the members of Sinn Fein have still to prove that they have crossed the Rubicon in their mind and ideology and that they accept the Crown forces operating in defence of the state.
	Mr. Adams continues to attack the rule of law, suggesting recently in America that he does not accept British law, and that he does not accept the Orange Order, which is probably the most truthful statement that he has made for a long time. I am sure that the parades commissioners would like to hear that statement. He said last week, in the Village magazine that
	There can be no role...in Ireland for MI5.
	But if he is genuinely to support policing, he must accept that, as paragraph 6 of the St. Andrews agreement states, he must endorse all the policing...institutions. That all includes the security forces and MI5.
	There must be no more double-speak from Mr. Adams on those matters. He has to move. He has to deliver. The people of Northern Ireland have delivered their young men and women to the bullet and the bomb, their mothers and fathers to murder. It is time that Mr. Adams delivered us from that state and we return to the ways of peace and the ways of power. He claims that he cannot move until he gets agreement on the modalities of all justice and police departments and until he gets a precise date for the devolution of policing. I refer him to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who can tell him about the unreliability of dates. For Mr. Adams, the dates seem never to develop.
	Mr. Adams well knows that none of those things are in the gift of the DUP, the SDLP or anyone else, unless the Sinn Feiners change. The people of Northern Ireland will not change; they will stand fast in the liberties that they believe that they should maintain. It is blatantly obvious that the community is not ready to say that Sinn Fein will do what it is supposed to, so we have to put it to the test. I trust that the test will be one that everyone can believe in, and the first step must be the declarationnot only the declaration but the demonstrationthat it has really changed and will help people forward, especially the police. At St. Andrews, I said that the clock had started for Sinn Fein to commit to policing, but since then it has studiously avoided every opportunity for commitment in a practical manner.
	The week before St. Andrews, Sinn Fein councillor Tom Hartley declared that Sinn Fein must detach the police from British state control. The week after St. Andrews, there was a dispute in Ballymurphy involving a gang attack, a severe beating and a gun attack, which all went uncondemned by the local Sinn Fein councillor and other local spokesmen for Sinn Fein, and no witness evidence from the community has been forthcoming or even encouraged by Sinn Fein members. Earlier this month, a man and a woman were viciously beaten and then burned to death in South Armagh by a republican family. The Sinn Fein MP for that area bit his tongue when it came to support for the police in their investigation of that horrific and diabolical crime, and once again no evidence is forthcoming from the people in that area who know who did it.
	Without genuine community and political support for the police, how are Unionists expected to move forward in confidence that Sinn Fein is ready to support the police? How can this House realistically believe that in 16 weeks it will be proved that Sinn Fein has done everything it should have done, that it is the most innocent of the innocent, and that all is well? Go and tell that even to the Roman Catholic people off the bottom of the Falls road and in Ballymurphy, and they will say what they are going through at this present time.
	My party and its executive officers have resolved the following:
	The DUP holds to its long-standing position that there can only be an agreement involving Sinn Fein when there has been delivery by the republican movement, tested and proved, over a credible period, in terms of support for the PSNI, the courts and the rule of law, a complete end to paramilitary and criminal activity and the removal of terrorist structures.
	The refusal of Sinn Fein even to begin to give support to the PSNI, the courts and the rule of law has clear adverse implications. We must demand at this time that the St. Andrews agreement is kept and that no provisions creep in to let these men off the hook. The DUP has met all the tests and conditions set for the agreement, and will meet all the tests and conditions set for democratic government in Northern Ireland.
	All I can say to the House is to echo the words of the great German reformer: Here we stand; we can do naught else. I trust that the Government will stand up to the terrorists and that we will see an end to terrorism and the beginning of a better Ulster, with pure democracy leading it.

Patrick Cormack: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a pressing and long-standing parliamentary commitment tonight, so I shall make a brief speech, but we have just heard an extremely important one, and I hope that the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues take note of what was said. I have not always agreed with the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), but today he spoke with force and passion. As he spoke, I could not help but think that the future is not what it used to be. He has held out real hope to the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. His party is the majority party at the moment, but it is for the people of Northern Ireland to determine, on 7 March, whether it remains in that position. He has indicated that, notwithstanding what happened in the pastthe murders, the mutilations, the atrocitieshis party is prepared to sit down with people who perpetrated, supported or condoned those acts, and to seek to work with them in a common cause, for the sake of the government of that part of the United Kingdom.
	We cannot expect any part of the United Kingdom to be governed by people who are not prepared, unequivocally, to sign up to the rule of law and to accept the courts, and the right hon. Gentleman made that plain. I say to the Minister of State that the Government have bent over backwards to try to bring people, and the parties, together, and I support them in that. I devoutly hope and pray that all will be well, and that we will achieve what the Government want to achieve through the Bill.
	However, if there is no credible delivery, and no absolute assurance, it will behove the Government to tell the one party that has refused to play by the democratic rules, and to take its seats in this House, Enough; no more. We will work with the other, democratic, elected parties of Northern Irelandthe Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party, and the other parties represented in the Assembly. We will work together to create as wide a power-sharing Executive as we can, in communities that play by the democratic rules, and that accept the rule of law.
	I hope that Sinn Fein will do what the right hon. Member for North Antrim says that it should, but the situation cannot go on and on. This is Sinn Fein's ultimate chance, and it must grasp it. If it does not, we must lead the people of Northern Ireland to a democratic future that includes all those who play by the democratic rules.

Eddie McGrady: My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) spoke about many of the Bill's successes, our hopes for the next couple of months, and the Bill's failings. I want to address two of those failings, which will have a considerable impact on the community in Northern Ireland.
	It is pretty obvious from all that we have heard that there are still many problems to be overcome if there is to be a restoration of the institutions under the agreement. I hope that we can overcome those problems and rein in the vetoes that are allowing people to hold back progress. At a time when direct rule has never looked more high-handed and shady, people need proper accountability. A devolved Government must be restored as soon as possible, and it must be a Government who respond to people's needs, instead of riding roughshod over their interests, even when those interests are unanimously expressed.
	It would be wrong, however, for people to regard the last five years purely as a time of deadlocked politics, because there have been great changesnowhere more so than in policing, which has been raised many times today. As the oversight commissioner reported, in just five years, 84 per cent. of Patten's 10-year programme of change has been completed or substantively implemented. That did not happen by accidentit was a huge endeavour by the people of Northern Irelandand it happened mainly because, in 2001, brave people decided to get on board and support law and order, taking risks to deliver a new beginning in policing. Without them, it simply would not have happened.
	Chief among those people were the independent members of the district policing partnerships, which perform the job of holding the police to account on local issues. They are composed of a majority of political members drawn from Northern Ireland's councils, as well as a minority of independent members. Schedule 8 rightly provides that if Sinn Fein is entitled to political membership of a DPP, all political members of that DPP automatically stand down so that space can be made for Sinn Fein councillors to join. That is fairwe do not want to keep Sinn Fein members out of the DPPs for a moment longer than they keep themselves outbut they must join DPPs only if they are committed to membership of the Policing Board.

Gregory Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to significant changes in policing over the past five years, but does he accept that whereas in the past many Catholics were prevented from joining the police by IRA threats, now many Protestants are prevented from doing so because of discriminatory legislation implemented by the House?

Eddie McGrady: The hon. Gentleman's comment is skewed, because a far higher proportion of Protestants join the police force today than Catholics.
	The Bill provides that independent members of DPPs will be automatically fired and must reapply if they wish to serve again. That is patently wrong, because independent members are, indeed, independentthey should not be fired just because Sinn Fein has joined the board. They are appointed for a four-year term, and they should not be sacked after just a year and a half, especially because many of them have been intimidated by Sinn Fein and attacked by republican dissidents. It will be difficult to encourage them to reapply, and that will deal a lasting blow to the credibility of DPPs in the community. Ironically, the St. Andrews agreement does not require the shoddy treatment of those people, who have delivered a great deal. It is yet another dirty side deal, in which those who have given most are treated worst by the Government.
	It is a poor reflection on Sinn Fein that it sought that concession. It shows that its priority is not change for the public goodthe independent members of DPPs have worked to deliver such changebut inside jobs for the boys. Surprisingly, the DUP, which saw it coming and secured many other vetoes, did not bother to veto that provision. That demonstrates yet again that the two parties that produced and excused the worst of our past will never deliver the best of our future. For them, it is jobs for the boys that count, not change for the public good or the public weal.
	I regret the fact that the Government have tried to veto another change, thus affecting public confidence in their approach to national security. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has primacy in matters of national security, and the police ombudsman has the power to investigate complaints about its handling of such matters. That accountability has been enormously helpful in building confidence in policing's new beginning, but the Government have taken a retrograde step by announcing that MI5 will assume primacy for national security in Northern Ireland next year. That does not make any sense whatsoever, as the Government's own Organised Crime Task Force has conceded that organised criminality and terrorism or paramilitarism in the north are two sides of the same coin. A single bodythe PSNIshould deal with all aspects of such issues.
	Critically, the Government's decision has serious implications for accountability on national security issues, because the police ombudsman will be hampered in her ability to investigate national security complaints. Instead, such complaints will be handled by the investigative powers tribunal. That is insufficient, because only people who believe that they are subject to MI5 surveillance can bring complaints against MI5. Terrorists under surveillanceeven Osama bin Ladencan complain about MI5, but people who are not terrorists, such as the Omagh families and other victims who have been let down by MI5, which did not bother to pass on important information, cannot do so.
	Complaints to the investigatory powers tribunal are fruitless. In the four years from 2000 to 2004, 380 complaints were made to the tribunal, but not one has been upheld, nor have any reasons been given for the failure to conduct further investigation. The police ombudsman can investigate the actions of staff belonging to UK-wide bodies such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency, HM Revenue and Customs and the immigration service. We believe that the Office of the Police Ombudsman should be able to do likewise for MI5. We even proposed an amendment to that effect. Regrettably, it was not selected because of the tight interpretation of the Bill's long title. I bow to superior knowledge, but the long title concludes with those all-important words, and for connected purposes. An appendix to the St. Andrews agreement was devoted to MI5, yet the organisation is not relevant to a measure entitled the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Bill. That is extremely curious, but we cannot debate it tonight.
	The Government may avoid facing up to the issue in the Bill, but it must nevertheless be confronted. Faceless men must not be allowed to get away with dark deeds, as has often happened in the past. Accountability is Patten's watchword, and the police ombudsmanthe watchdog for policingmust be able to shine light into the shadowy places where MI5 operates. Our party has always believed that to solve the problems of our society we must ensure that there are working political institutions and working policing institutions. The two go hand in hand. That is why we warn the Government against making underhand moves on MI5 and side deals on policing, which damage not only the new policing dispensation but our political institutions. They weaken trust and strike at the foundations of openness in security and policing on which we are trying to build a new society. Strong, robust policing, as we know, protects everyone, and it deserves everyone's respect, not least the Government's.

Andrew MacKinlay: Briefly, despite the curtailment of discussion and parliamentary process, I very much welcome the Bill. The Government have done a great deal to improve the modalities of power sharing and to facilitate much needed devolved government for the people of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland statute book is seriously deficient, because there has not been proper governance there for a quarter of a century.
	We can see that right across the range of services, particularly in regard to matters that relate to the ordinary taxpayer and ratepayer. Those matters include environmental protection and the maintenance and quality of the fabric of Northern Ireland. For example, its beautiful Regency and Georgian architecture does not receive the protection that is afforded to similar places in London or Essex.
	The Government have done a great deal to remedy all this, and they are entitled to take credit for working hard over a long period to facilitate this agreement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will probably be remembered for many things, but he is certainly entitled to be remembered for the energy, enthusiasm and enormous patience that he has brought to trying to achieve a settlement in IrelandI am using the word Ireland deliberatelyduring his premiership. Many people have contributed to those efforts, some of whom are in the Chamber today. Whatever their persuasion, people have moved and tried to reach concord and agreement, and they are entitled to some acknowledgement for that. We must also remember the significant contribution by members of the United States Administrations in recent years to persuade, cajole and facilitate, and the energy that the Taoiseach has brought to bear on these issues.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned MI5 a few moments ago. The Government should, in any event, bring before the House a new security and intelligence Bill. Quite apart from the issue of MI5's responsibility for security in Northern Ireland, the oversight by this Parliament of our security and intelligence services is woefully inadequate. This is one of the few parliamentary democracies that has no parliamentary oversight of its security and intelligence services. There is no parliamentary Committee to provide that oversight. There is a Committee of parliamentarians appointed by the head of the security and intelligence services, the Prime Minister, but there is no parliamentary oversight. That oversight is long overdue. The Foreign Affairs Committee has made this point in the past.
	Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that the answer is that the Government need to introduce with some expedition a new security and intelligence Bill to create a Committee of Parliament, rather than one that is appointed by the Prime Minister, to scrutinise MI5, MI6 and the other security and intelligence services right across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. That would give some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
	If the Government give an undertaking to expand the membership of the Security and Intelligence Committee, that will require legislation in this House. It cannot be done by a decision of the Prime Minister or by order. The Government should come clean and acknowledge that, because I understand that that is their intention. I believe that they should increase the Committee's membership, to facilitate the involvement of the parties that take part in the deliberations of the Westminster Parliament. Members of those parties should have seats on the Committee, which should, for the first time, be made a Committee of Parliament.
	I want to counsel caution on another issue. The Northern Ireland Assembly is extraordinarily large for a democratic legislature, but I think that we all know why. It is to make room in the garden for everyone, and it is a price worth paying. There is talk of reducing the size of the legislature in the long term, but I would counsel the need to keep the large numbers. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) talked about the need for normal politics. I cannot help but reflect that Northern Ireland is not greatly different from the central belt of Scotland, where Protestant and Catholic working-class people have a truce and, by and large, vote for a radical party [ Interruption.] I carefully crafted my words when I said that. There is certainly a tradition among the Protestant and Catholic working-class people in Scotland of voting Labour. There are many people who hold office in local government in the Labour party who are members of the Orange Order. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), looks surprised at that. He really ought to know a bit more about the Labour party. There are many members of the Orange Order in Scotland who are active in the Labour party, to their credit, and there are of course many good Catholic folk as well.
	I dream of a day when people's aspirations regarding the national issue of Ireland can be accommodated in normal politics. Across Europe, we see the social democratic parties, the conservative parties, and so on. Given time, there could be a realignment of the political position in Irelandin Northern Ireland, in Irelandthat would make people feel more comfortable voting in a way that reflects the normal tradition. These provisions might be a vehicle for that.
	Most reasonable people will find it unacceptable for a political party not to accept a policing structure that has been carefully crafted. Supporters of Sinn Fein in the United States of America prevailed on it to sign up to the policing arrangements and worked with the political parties to craft the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It cannot be acceptable that any party is able to say that it still does not accept the policing structure, while expecting others to serve in government with it. There must be a test of reasonableness. If people are to be in government, they must accept the arrangement that has been agreed and welcomed by the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, namely, the courts and normal policing by the PSNI.
	I would not use terms such as United Kingdom courts or the royal courts of justice. They are Irish courts. It is an Irish police force. It happens that people have different traditions, but I would say to the people of Ireland that they can be Unionists and also proud to be Irish, as the regiments are. The point is that these are Irish courts, and it is an Irish police force.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I cannot allow him to get away with that. He knows perfectly well that, when the people of Northern Ireland voted in their thousands for the Belfast agreement, they voted that Northern Ireland should remain an integral part of the United Kingdom unless or until they voted otherwise. The courts in Northern Ireland are British in the same way as the courts in Liverpool, London, Birmingham and everywhere else in the United Kingdom are. It is not correct to describe them as Irish. It is completely constitutionally and technically incorrect.

Andrew MacKinlay: I fully accept the long-standing agreement that Clement Attlee's Government made that, unless or until there was any change in the views of the people of Northern Ireland, freely expressed, the constitutional arrangements would remain, and that the six counties of Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I fully accept that. Perhaps my inability fully to explain the position is the problem. I was appealing to the people who do not subscribe to that agreement, and saying that they could feel confident that those courts were in the ownership of the people of Northern Ireland. They demonstrably operate in Irelandfor some people, it is Northern Ireland. We also have the Irish regiments. We do not talk about the Northern Irish Guards; they are the Irish Guards, and everyone is comfortable with that. I notice that many people come from Ballyfermot in Dublin to join the Irish Guards. People do not see this in any other terms.
	There should be no misunderstanding. I would say to the hon. Lady that one of the most important things for me is self-determination, and the people of Northern Ireland have clearly and demonstrably expressed their view that, at this time, they want the existing constitutional arrangements to remain. I fully and wholeheartedly support the honouring of that, and I do not think anyone questions it seriously now. Let us be blunt: Sinn Fein must accept it, because it is the freely expressed will of the people of Northern Ireland. However, the police system will demonstrably not be run from London. It will be run from the territory of Northern Irelandfrom that part of the United Kingdomunder devolved arrangements. Similarly, the police forces of Scotland are United Kingdom forces but, demonstrably, Scottish forces as well. I believe that that is fully understood.
	Let me return to a point on which I hope I can establish concord with the hon. Lady and others throughout the House. I find it unacceptable, as I am sure my constituents would, for anyone to opt out of recognising the Police Service of Northern Ireland and accepting the courts. People can choose how they describe the system. That was the point that I was trying to make, perhaps inadequately. They should be relaxed about that. What must endure above all is the principle of courts created by legislatures and run by Ministers chosen by them.
	I will support the Bill, and I wish it well.

Peter Robinson: As a Unionist who is proud to be British, I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who deserves to be heard in the House on Northern Ireland matters. He has always shown considerable interest in the subject, he takes the trouble to come to Northern Irelandalthough I hope that it is not troubleand he knows Northern Ireland and its people well.
	I agreed with the hon. Gentleman's early comments about the advantages of devolution over direct rule. Few of us who live and work in Northern Ireland believe that the bunch of Ministers we have now could not be bettered by Northern Ireland Ministers doing the same job. Indeed, some of us believe that certain of their decisions were made in a way that would incite the people of Northern Ireland to want devolution back. Be that as it may, devolution is clearly preferable to direct rulebut my colleagues and I believe that it must be the right form of devolution, not just whatever is cobbled together and thrown at us.
	The road to where we are now has been a long one, more of a marathon than a sprint. While some will talk of deadlines, to my party the important thing is to ensure that the conditions are right rather than that they are secured quickly. I shall deal with the timetable issue shortly, but let me first point out that in 1998 an agreement was reached following deadlines given by George Mitchell, who was responsible for mediating and facilitating the talks. When he said that he would go home on the next flight unless an agreement was reached, people hurriedly reached an agreement.
	Hearing the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) lecture us about the imperfections of some aspects of the Bill, one would think that we had something akin to Utopia in 1998. In fact, it was such a bad dealso bad were the structuresthat it collapsed and collapsed and collapsed again, and we have had nothing remotely close to devolution in Northern Ireland since. It is clear that improvements could be made. My party knows that in 1998 we had people in Government representing an organisation that was still holding on to all its weaponry and was still involved in paramilitary activities. Even while its members were in Government, that organisation was still carrying out terrorist acts. It was continuing to engage in criminality unabated: it was probably the largest criminal empire in Europe.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's news that 1 million of criminal assets are to be frozenassets linked to the alleged chief of staff of the Provisional IRA, one Thomas Slab Murphy? We have pressed for precisely that kind of action by the authorities, and this shows the success of our pressure.

Peter Robinson: I seem to recall that when Slab Murphy's farm was invaded by the guards on one side and the police on the other, Sinn Fein's leader told us how honourable, decent and honest this man was. In the weeks ahead, the nature of the business that Slab Murphy carried on may be exposed; but it is better that I say no more. We will leave the courts to deal with those matters.
	Not only was there the issue of weapons being retained and the continuation of paramilitary and criminal activity, but there was no indication that Sinn Fein would ever be asked whether it was prepared to support the police, the courts and the rule of law. Those who were negotiating in those days did not even dare ask Sinn Fein to make such a commitment. At the same time, there was no accountability for Northern Ireland Ministers in the Executive. I think we had better define accountability, because to the hon. Member for Foyle it means answerability as opposed to being held to account for decisions, and the ability to negate those decisions if the Assembly did not like them. There was no accountability in that democratic institution.
	As Ministers, both the hon. Gentleman and I were able to make decisions. We did not require the approval of any committee in the Assembly; we did not even require the approval of the Executive committee of the Assembly; and we did not require the approval of the Assembly itself. Indeed, decisions were made in defiance of all those bodies. I recall a decision

Mark Durkan: rose

Peter Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish what I am saying, I will give way to him shortly.
	I recall the decision by the then Member for West Belfast, the Minister responsible for health, to take the maternity unit to her own constituency, despite and in defiance of the view of the Assembly's health committee and a vote by the Assembly itself. The system was clearly not accountable. Not only was it not accountable in terms of the Northern Ireland Assembly itself; it was not accountable in terms of the north-southery that went with it. The Bill, although inadequate in parts, will introduce more accountability than there was for the Belfast agreement: much needed accountability.

Mark Durkan: rose

Peter Robinson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he has been sitting on the edge of his seat.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman is presenting us with a farrago of misrepresentations of how the institutions actually worked. He said that he and I, as Ministers, were totally unaccountable. When I was Finance Minister, anything to do with the budget had to be approved by the Executive committee. it was then subjected to a cross-community vote in the Assembly. Not just the budget itself but budgetary procedures had to be subject to such cross-community votes. That is accountability and transparency, far more than the hon. Gentleman's party would be comfortable with other Ministers' being subjected to.

Peter Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman had been out in a spending department as I was, he would know just how flexible those budgets can be. He would know how money can be taken from a head of expenditure and used virtually according to ministerial decision, in whatever way one wishes. That has happened. Many decisions were made that never went near the Executive. The fact is that there is now real accountability.
	Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who complaints about that accountability, that any system of government can be made not to work. This system is there as a protectiona safety net. It is not envisaged that every day Ministers will run into an Executive and use their veto powers to stop decisions. The aim is to ensure that the handful of decisions that may be made during the term of an Assembly can be blocked before the Executive, and that a collective and united decision on those issues can be made by the Executive, rather than decisions being made that damage the interests of one community or another. That seems good sense to me, and an improvement on the previous position.

Mark Durkan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Robinson: I really must make some progress. I have not come to the real issue with which I want to deal, and we have already heard from the occupants of the Chair that they would prefer brevity so that all who wish to speak can do so.
	There are important issues to address. We made progress at St. Andrews and we have made progress since, but there is still more work to be done. The Government know the outstanding issues on which my party colleagues and I must be satisfied. Those issues will not go away. They will have to be dealt with. The Government know that delivery is required, including by Sinn Fein in relation to policing, the courts and what they say about the rule of law. There also has to be delivery in terms of the IRA's position on paramilitary and criminal activity and the structures of terrorism. Those are all required before there can ever be devolution in Northern Ireland. Nothing in that is new: we have been saying it for years. We are mandated to say it and we are mandated to have it carried out.
	Delivery is also required from the Government. Some parts of that delivery lie within the Bill, but it has elements that we do not like. When we come to consider the amendments, the Government will hear about some of the elements that we do not like. There are other elements that should be included in legislation and we will continue to press the Government on those.
	We have started the marathon, but we have not reached the finishing post. That is why I am concerned when I hear remarks such as those made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who wants everybody to be tight about timetables. If conditions are attached to making progress and the timetable does not satisfy them, the process is condition-led, not calendar-led. That is an essential element that the hon. Gentleman cannot ignore. Unless those conditions are satisfied, my colleagues are mandated not to move forward. Unless they are met, the executive, the officers and the Assembly Members of the Democratic Unionist party are not prepared to move forward. It is not the case that once we reach a certain date we can be bludgeoned into an Executive. At that time, we will look to see whether the necessary conditions have been met and if they have not, the Government will have to be flexible.
	The course that the hon. Gentleman offers will lead to failure. He says that if the conditions are not met by that time, we should tear the edifice down. I say that if we are going in the right direction, we should make sure that we get it right. If that requires more flexibility, such as the Government accepting an amendment to the Bill or the need for new legislation, better that than going forward with the sort of structures that we had in 1998, with the consequences that we also then had.

Lembit �pik: I do not really disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I understand his position, which he accurately summarised as condition-led, not deadline-led. My concern is that the Government are deadline-led, but that that is not credible because everybody knows that they will always alter a deadline if that is what they have to do to continue the process. I was suggesting that the Government need to recognise the needs of the DUP and others and stop pretending that setting a deadline will make everything fall into place.

Peter Robinson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. If the parties themselves had reached the timetables, there might be some justification in his position, but these are not our timetables. They are designed to suit other people and not because they have anything to do with Northern Ireland or because it makes sense for Northern Ireland to make progress by that date. The timetable has been set to suit the Prime Minister in relation to his legacy and his tenure in office. Bertie Ahern also has a timetable, because he has an election in the offing. Those are the timetables to which we are being asked to adhere, but that is not in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. What is in their interests is that, whatever the timetable, we get it right and we have stable, secure and lasting Government in Northern Ireland.

Lembit �pik: rose

Peter Robinson: I shall give way one last time.

Lembit �pik: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman twice, but I wished to clarify my point. There surely has to be some acceptance by the DUP that although the Government's timetables will always have an element of expediency, there has to be an endpoint. Does he agree that we cannot carry on like this indefinitely and that at some point the DUP has to recognise that it has some obligation to shift?

Peter Robinson: But to accept what the hon. Gentleman has said I would have to accept an outrageous premise. The suggestion is that the DUP is holding the process back. If our position is condition-led, we will move forward when the conditions are in place. The conditions are that Sinn Fein brings completion to paramilitary and criminal activity, tears down its terrorist structures, and supports the courts, the police and the rule of law. Does any hon. Member think that that is unreasonable? If not, we should forget about the timetables and put the pressure where it should be puton those who are holding back progress in Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Robinson: I said that I had given way for the last time, but I will give way to the hon. Lady.

Lady Hermon: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He even gave way with a smile, which is extraordinary. That is like tea and hot cross buns. Will he confirm the briefing given to the political editor of  The Sunday Times that the deadline of 26 March lacks credibility? I notice that the only amendments tabled by the DUP relate to moving the 26 March deadline? Is he telling the people of Northern Ireland to forget about 26 March because it is not a feasible deadline?

Peter Robinson: What I have said is abundantly clear. I do not feel bound by any deadline in the process. Conditions have to be met. Will they be met by 26 March? I do not know, because I am not the one holding back progressSinn Fein is. On the basis of what the Government said, we expected Sinn Fein to come out of St. Andrews and call its ard chomhairleI hope that the  Hansard reporters do not ask me how to spell thattogether to pass a resolution that would be put before the ard fheis, which would take the decision to support policing and the courts in Northern Ireland. That has not happened. It has not even got to the stage of making a recommendation. Far from calling a meeting, the  Irish Times has revealed in the past few days that Sinn Fein is saying that until it gets a timetable for policing and justice to be devolved to Northern Ireland, it will not call the ard fheis. If that is Sinn Fein's position, it certainly is not a condition in the St. Andrews agreement. If the Government accepted that Sinn Fein had given a positive response to the agreement, I assume that they must have been prepared to move forward without that condition being met. Once again, they are asking people to meet the condition who are not responsible for meeting it.
	The position on policing and justice is as plain as a pikestaffan expression better known to those from the island of Ireland than anyone else. There can be no more sensitive issue affecting the people of Northern Ireland. It affects people's lives and is the key issue affecting their security and way of life in the Province. It cannot be ditched as part of a deal. Everybody has to be secure and confident about the issue before we move forward. I say to people in Northern Ireland that even if one of my colleagues were to be the Minister responsible for the issue, we would still do better not to have it included in the early stages of devolution . [ Interruption. ] I am glad that the hon. Member for Foyle agrees. To put policing and justice into an Assembly that had not bedded down would be madness. To put it into the hands of those who have been engaged in acts of terrorism and criminality would be absurd. The community would not tolerate that.
	The essential ingredient is community confidence. People must demonstrate that they have turned over a new leaf. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, they must prove that they have changed. It is not about what people say, but about how they behave. That is what is important, but it will be a long time before the people of Northern Ireland accept the bona fides of any Sinn Fein Minister.
	I cannot create that confidence. In the comprehensive agreement of 2004, the Government said that they would work to create the community confidence that was necessary, as did the DUP. Both they and we can work as much we want, and I am sure that we will, but none of that will make any difference because it is Sinn Fein who must create that confidence. The people whom I represent have no confidence in Sinn Fein, so it us up to Sinn Fein to make the moves.
	What confidence could anyone in Northern Ireland have in a timetable for the devolution of policing and justice when Sinn Fein has yet to give any support to the police in Northern Ireland? It would be a bit cheeky of Sinn Fein members to want to hurry along the process of devolution even after they had given some support to the police and the courts but, as the hon. Member for Foyle said, they have a right neck to ask for it before they have even reached that stage. That is the reality in terms of policing and justice in Northern Ireland.
	I want to ask the Minister a few questions on the record. To avoid any suggestion that they are unexpected, I can tell the House that I gave him prior knowledge of the specific points that I intend to raise. I hope that he will be able to give the fullest possible answers to what are undoubtedly complex matters. If he does not have the necessary information, his officials certainly do. I am sure that he will want the courts, when they interpret the legislation, to have the benefit of the clearest possible ministerial statements to help resolve any ambiguity.
	Will the Minister confirm that the intention of the clauses on the ministerial code is to ensure that particular decisions set out in what will be sections 20(3) and (4) of the amended Northern Ireland Act 1998 will be decisions for the Executive and not for a Minister or junior Minister?
	Will the Minister confirm that a decision that, by virtue of proposed sections 20(3) or (4), ought to be brought to the attention of, and considered by, the Executive committee, will not be valid without the committee's approval, and that without such approval Ministers will have no authority to take any such decision? Will a Minister have authority to take a decision that is properly brought to the Executive committee under proposed new section 28A(5) but about which the Executive committee is unable to agree? What is the status of a decision taken by Ministers who do not have the necessary authority?
	Will the Minister confirm that the Bill will mean that any decision of the North/South Ministerial Council, which is cross-cutting by nature, or any other matter involving relationships with the Republic of Ireland that are affected by external relations, will have to go to the Executive for agreement? Without such approval, will Ministers have authority to take such a decision? Would any such ministerial decision be valid?
	Will any decision beyond a de minimis level that involves human rights, equality or economic policy issues and which is regarded as cutting across the responsibilities of two or more Ministers therefore need to be discussed and agreed by the Executive committee? Will any decision outside a Department's delegated authority that involves expenditure and which requires the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel be regarded as one that cuts across the responsibilities of two or more Ministers? Would such a decision also need to be discussed and agreed by the Executive committee?
	I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear that I have only one more question. Will any significant, strategic or controversial decisions fall outside the category of decision that could require the discussion of and agreement by the Executive committee?
	I gave the Minister notice that I would be asking those questions, and I know that he is ready to reply in great detail. It is important that those questions, and the Minister's replies, be placed on the record, as in one case that I once took right through to the House of Lords it was suggested that the Minister who had made certain remarks at the Dispatch Box was not necessarily aware of all the issues and so had not made a considered response. This Minister has had the opportunity to prepare, or at least his officials have, and I am therefore expecting a considered response from him tonight.

David Anderson: First, I apologise to the House for having to leave earlier.
	The question that we must ask ourselves is: why are we here? We might all have different reasons, but I think that the underlying reason is that we want to make Northern Ireland the same as every other part of the UK. We want people there to have the same experiences as other people in this country.
	I come from Sunderland, which is similar to Belfast, although I know that Belfast is not the same as the rest of Northern Ireland. Sunderland was built on ships; for many years, ours was the biggest shipbuilding town in the world. It was built on hard work, and the people there played hard and worked hard. It was a town with poor housing in some areas, and poor educational achievements. Unemployment was endemic, and the population was made up of people from different religions and races.
	However, Sunderland was never a town where people killed each other, blew each other up, shot at the police or killed troops on the street. I want my town and Belfast to have the same future, even though they have had very different pasts. I am not saying that Belfast should become the second Sunderlandespecially as Niall Quinn and Roy Keane are trying to make Sunderland the second Dublin.
	We should grasp with both hands the chance that this debate offers. I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this discussion: those who have been involved in it in the year and a half since I came to the House will know that I have a long, proud record of representing people in Northern Ireland as a lay official of the Unison trade union.
	Unison had a chequered history in Northern Ireland. Some of its partner unions did not support or organise there, while others did. Some people did not believe that representatives from Great Britain should have any say in the day-to-day workings of the union in Northern Ireland. As a result, for the first two years that I was involved over there, we spent a lot of time talking to each other about what we would do to try to make the union work in Northern Ireland.
	Thankfully, the union did work over there. It worked because people worked together and ignored what was happening around them, although that is not to say that they did not care about what was happening outside. They developed an agenda that is non-partisan. If something is wrong it should be challenged: if people do not have jobs, if they have bad housing or are being mistreated at work, or if children do not have good schools to go to, that should be challenged and put right. Our agenda does not take sides on the constitutional position, and we have refused to be drawn into the argument about whether there should be a united Ireland, or whether Ireland should never be united. We chose instead to do the work that the union always does: protecting the working people in their day-to-day lives.
	The union supported civil rights issues on all sides and worked with the often ignored ethnic minority community in Northern Ireland. We argued with past Governmentsincluding a Labour Governmentfor better terms and conditions and against the privatisation of jobs. We acted as a catalyst for people to come together. We shared experiences with those in other parts of these islands and the Republic of Ireland about developing a way to devolution and self-determination.
	My union put peace and stability on the Labour party agenda. Before the Labour party came to power, we funded the work of the shadow Northern Ireland Office, because we believed that that was in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and the members of the union. We promoted the equality agenda and we condemned attacks on innocent people at home and at work. We did what many hon. Members present did: we did our best, standing up for people and defending them.
	The union engaged with various political parties. One of my proudest moments was in 1996 when we organised a seminar in Newcastle, County Down, just five days after the bombing at Canary Wharf. The seminar was attended by representatives of almost every political party. It was one of the first times that we got together in one room, and it was a great success. An even greater success, for me, was my return to the same venue last month, as a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, under the leadership of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). The difference in the area is palpable, and the House and the nation should be proud of the changes that we have made in the past 10 years. We still have a lot of work to do, but we should congratulate ourselves on what we have done.
	When we were in Northern Ireland, we went to Belfast. People were having a discussion about the removal of murals. The argument was not, If you remove that mural, it is an attack on my culture and my past. The argument was whether removing the murals would have an impact on tourism. That shows again how the mindset has been changed in Northern Ireland as a result of the work that we have all done and should keep on doing.
	My union welcomed the Good Friday agreement back in 1998 as the best deal on offer. Clearly, some people did not agree with that, but the union stood up for the brave people who stood against the communities that they came from. They took a lot of personal flak, but they said, We believe this is the way forward for the people of this Province. The process has been neither happy nor straightforwardwe have talked about the problems tonightbut things have got better.
	I can remember when Belfast was almost a no-go area for people from Great Britain. The first time I went to Northern Ireland, I drove from Newcastle to Stranraer, and the last thing I did was fill up with petrol so that when I got off at Larne I did not have to stop at the border. Thankfully, that mentality no longer exists. The truth is that Northern Ireland is a place that people from all over the world, especially from this island, should go to, enjoy and respect.
	There is much more for us to do. As an advocate of devolution, I wish that the opportunities that are being given to Northern Ireland through the Bill and previous work had been given to the people of the north-east of England. If they had, we might have had devolution and been able to look after our people better. We must accept our responsibilities in this House. We have to do what we can for the people of Northern Ireland with the chance that we have got. I understand the issues that people have raised today; they are serious, genuine issues, but the underlying process must be to move forward. The local politicians and politicians in this House have shown that they can do that, and we should be proud of what they have done.
	The Bill lays the foundation for that to carry on. The people of Northern Ireland will be represented by their people. Northern Ireland politicians will be directly accountable to their people in a way that at this moment they are not, because they cannot deliver the things that people deserve and rightly expect. Northern Ireland Members will have the right to talk about transport, culture, arts, leisure and planning mattersissues that are now decided by Ministers and civil servants, who clearly do not have the same interest or faith in the people. Therefore, the Bill should be supported.
	One thing that kept me going through the debates when devolution broke down was that there had been some successes. I believe that those successes were achieved because the politicians were nearer to the people. The people were telling the politicians, We elect you; this is what we want you to do. People responded to that and should be allowed to do so again in the positive way that they did during the short period from 1998 onwards.
	The time has come for us to re-engage with that accountability. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain to make that move forward. Any structural or ideological objections need to be sorted out and removed. I hope that that can be done in a timely way, but not so as it slows down the process until it yet again goes into reverse. The fact is that sometimes the best that we can achieve is not always what we want, but it is the best. The agreement and the Bill should be embraced by the politicians and the people of Northern Ireland, and should be implemented and pursued positively and progressively.
	I urge the political representatives of all parties to use this opportunity on behalf of their people, their communities and their cultures to accept that with this power comes a massive responsibilitya responsibility not to allow centuries of hatred and bigotry to get in the way of delivering for their people; a responsibility not to use the limits and restrictions in the legislation in a partisan way in order to further party political goals; and a responsibility to the rest of us in this Parliament and on this island to ensure that the faith that we place in them is not misplaced and not abused.
	This is a good day for democracy; it is a good day for my Government, for a succession of Ministers and for our Prime Minister, who has stood firm and led from the front in this debate for more than a decade. It is a good day for all the people in this House, in Northern Ireland and beyond who have refused to accept the rule of the gun over the rule of law. We should praise and congratulate those people. It is a good day for those who have said that terrorism will never ever succeed. Above all, it could be a good day for the great people of Northern Irelandif we have the bottle to get this right.

William McCrea: I have listened with interest to many of the contributions that have been made from both sides of the House. There is certainly a reality that seems to be in many hearts and minds at this moment. People think that there are certain issues that we have to face if we are to move towards a stable future for Northern Ireland. It is clear that the Belfast agreement failed the people of Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, some of the ground that was surrendered by David Trimble at the time of the Belfast agreement can never be regained. That is a solemn and sad reality, and for that his name will go down in the history books, never to be forgotten by the Unionist population of Northern Ireland.
	We have had many false dawns, so it is important that there is a realism over this House tonight. The realism is this: if there is not delivery, then there certainly is no deal. The Secretary of State has suggested that as we have signed up for the St. Andrews agreement we have moved on to the next stage. In actual fact, he must be under some illusion, because no one has signed up. The two people who have signed up are Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. The Democratic Unionist party has made it abundantly clear that if there is no delivery, there is no deal. Therefore, the delivery has to come. There is no delivery at the present time. We have to face that reality. We will come on to what we mean by delivery.
	It is a reality that, for too long, our Province and the democratic politicians in Northern Ireland have been held to ransom by terrorists. Successive Governments bowed and scraped to the terrorists who threatened the people of Northern Ireland and Governments. In order to appease terrorismthe IRAthey have penalised the innocent instead of facing up to and defeating terrorism. We must never forget, whenever we come to talk about a future, the hurt and the innocent victims who were slaughtered by terrorists. Many people still carry scars on their bodies, never mind those who carry scars in their hearts whenever they think of the murder and slaughter of innocent loved ones. We have to remember these things when we come to talk about the Second Reading of the St. Andrews agreement Bill.
	We need to remember that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. The Minister needs to know that. The Secretary of State said that if we did not accept the Bill and we did not have devolved government, we would go to plan B, which would introduce the interference of the Government of a foreign state in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. That is absolutely repulsive. It is blackmail and a threat held over the people of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is an equal part of the United Kingdom. It deserves to be serviced and governed equally with every other part of the United Kingdom. If there is no devolved government in Northern Ireland, this House is the House that governs; this Parliament is the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is the responsibility of this House to deal with the laws that affect the day-to-day lives of people in Northern Ireland.
	A threat is held over the people of Northern Ireland. The threat is, If you do not bow to accept into government thugs or murderers who have not repented of their terrorism, you will be given something worse. The something worse is more interference in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic. It is an absolute disgrace and a humiliation that the Government are trying to force that on the people of the United Kingdom. We are an equal part and no threats from Dublin in the past or threats from the Government now or in the future will make the people of Northern Ireland accept anything less than true democracy and democratic rule. Let the Government hear that loud and clear.

Lady Hermon: I am a little bit concerned about the word repentance. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether it is now a precondition of sitting in government in the Executive that Sinn Fein Members should repent of their sins?

Peter Robinson: And Ulster Unionists as well.

William McCrea: I mentioned earlier that Mr. Trimble has much to repent of as regards what he has done to the good people of Northern Ireland, for which he will go down in history.
	Let me make it abundantly clear: repentance is proved by action. Whenever a person repents, there is a change of mind and a change of heart, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) should know. That is why we have made it abundantly clear that words and rhetoric are out if that is all there is; there must be a credible period of testing to prove that there has been repentance and a change of mind and that Sinn Fein has turned its back on terrorism and completely renounced its path. It must prove that it is relying on the democratic mandate alone for the future of Northern Ireland.
	Should the House be interested in knowing whether I believe that Sinn Fein has come to that place, my answer is no, I do not believe that it has done so, and I shall give the reason. In July, Michael McIvor, a Sinn Fein councillor, who is still a member of Sinn Fein, which has taken no action against him, made some comments about dissident republican groups. He claimed that the strength of Continuity IRA and the Real IRA had been blown out of proportion by the media and the police, because despite being responsible for a litany of killings and attacks they had
	never caused British army deaths.
	He described the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA as Brit loving, and said that there was no comparison between them and the Provisional IRA, because:
	The PSNI and those sections of the media who call the dissidents hardline refuse to tell the Irish people why the Continuity or Real have never killed a member of the Brit forces.
	They are, therefore, not heroes and not to be taken seriously because they have not murdered British forces. A member of Sinn Feinan elected representative of Sinn Feinsays that those people are not strong republicans because they have not put bodies in coffins. All the Bills in the world will not change that mindset. Until there is a turning away from that pathway and clear repentance, Sinn Fein members cannot be treated as democrats.
	What do we mean by support for the security forces? Is it just that Martin McGuinness, or somebody else with a history of terrorism as long as their arm, has only to say, I support the police? Of course, paragraph 6 of the agreement specifies that it is support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but he believes that Northern Ireland is a failed political entity. If he has to support the PSNI he will have to turn his republican philosophy on its head, because he will have to acknowledge that failed political entity. Indeed, if he wants to be part of the Northern Ireland Assembly Executive he will have to be part of that failed political entity, so his republican philosophy has disappeared in that respect. Furthermore, many members of the PSNI were formerly members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which he also hated and despised, so that will be interesting.
	However, to give such support does not make Martin McGuinness a democrat or prove his credentials. He and Sinn Fein have to do that not only by word but in deed, and the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition made it abundantly clear at the Dispatch Box the other day that one of the proofs was that they would have to hand over those responsible for the murder of Robert McCartney. Not only does Sinn Fein know who the murderers are, they are a part of that organisation. Let us see whether Sinn Fein gives those proofs by its actionsby handing over those whom it knows are responsible for murder and destruction in recent days, since the Belfast agreement.

Mark Durkan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the deeply held suspicion that some of those involved in the McCartney murder were MI5 agents?

William McCrea: I have said in the past that some of the Sinn Fein leadership were part of MI5. I believe that the British have so much on certain persons that they have been turning the screw on them to get them to jump through hoops. I do not care which individuals are responsible for that murder in this respect: whoever is responsible must be brought to justice. It does not matter who they are or where they come from, the persons responsible must be brought to justice

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am responsible for ensuring that the debate concentrates on the Bill, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do that.

William McCrea: The SDLP tried to lead me down the wrong path, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall listen to your advice and not be sidetracked.
	The issues relating to delivery will not be pleasant for some people, but if they want to be democrats they have to face the line of democracy, and there will be no dulling of that line to placate or appease them. That was done for years and where has it taken us?down the bloody pathway of murder and destruction. It is time that the Government and the House had the guts to stand up to the terrorists and to the party that has trailed democracy on the ground for years. The Government must allow us to have real peace and stability.

Mark Durkan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William McCrea: No, I will not be led astray again.
	Sinn Fein is trying to fool its electorate by suggesting that some fanciful date will be given in respect of policing and justice. Let me make it abundantly clear: we will not be led by the nose by Sinn Fein into the devolution of policing and justice just to placate its members. Some of my colleagues have rightly said that the date will not be in their political lifetimeor even in 10 lifetimesbut we will not be fooled, or fool the electorate, by saying that reality will be softened just to please Sinn Fein or anyone else.
	I want to mention a few other things before I draw my remarks to a conclusion. A number of issues must be nailed down. There must be a default mechanism; it is a great weakness that the Bill does not include one. Sinn Fein wants to get through the door, because it knows that in the past the SDLP did not have the guts to put its members out. The Ulster Unionists hardly ever had the guts to put them out. Those parties worked together to keep them in. There must be a default mechanism to ensure that if people do not stay on the path of democracy, they should not be in the democratic Government of our Province.
	What about ill-gotten gains? What about the proceeds of crime? We cannot run away from those issues. What about the structures of the IRA?

Nigel Dodds: On the issue of criminal assets, we are glad to hear the news today of the freezing of the assets of one 'Slab' Murphy, whom Gerry Adams described as a decent republican [Interruption]a decent republican farmer, not a criminal. Does my hon. Friend agree that the retention by any individual or organisation of the proceeds of crime is criminal activity in its own right, and that if the IRA is ending criminality it will need to make arrangements for the disposal of assets, not just have the Assets Recovery Agency seize them? Does he also agree that in the number of weeks that we have left before certain deadlines, whether it be an election or 26 March, it is going to take a lot of handing over to meet that deadline?

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I absolutely concur with every word. Yes it will take a lot, and those in this Administrationour Governmenthad better face up to those realities. As for deadlines, this party did not set the deadlines; and as for breaking the deadlines, those who set them are responsible for them, and we will not be put into the corner by any deadline that has been set, because for years the IRA has been given deadlines, and it has never kept one of them. It is supposed to have decommissioned all its weapons years ago, but it did not do so until it was forced into what was, indeed, considerable decommissioning when the screw was put on by the DUP and the leader of our party.
	The structures of the IRA have to be dealt with. We saw the dismantling of our army bases along the border, and now we are told that there is a considerable threat against the Protestant community along that border and in border areas. The structures of the community's defence have been taken away, but the structures of the IRA are not taken away. No; its structure is still there. As far as any democratic Government is concerned, there is no need for a paramilitary and there is no need for an army sitting in the wings to threaten those in a democratic society; so as far as the provisionals are concerned, the structures of the IRA have got to go.
	I simply say in closing that, yes, we have made progress, but certainly we have a long road to go. That may be a long, hard road, and if we break deadlines so let it be, but we are not misleading the people of Ulster, the people who have suffered for so many years. We want to ensure that we have a credible peacea definite peaceand that we shall have stability for our people in the future. That, in my opinion, is the best deal that we could do for Ulster.

Alasdair McDonnell: I shall be brief. I welcome the progress that we are making towards peace, stability and devolved government in Northern Ireland, however slow. The St. Andrews deal marks another milestone on that long, slow road and I hope that, perhaps, today will mark a milestone as well, enabling us to move forward.
	Like my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady), I agree that this legislation has some positives, and perhaps a few negatives or failures. I think that our party, the SDLP, has the right to take credit for a lot of the positives. After all, this legislation contains many clear improvements on the draft legislation published last month by the Government, which would have implemented many aspects of the failed comprehensive agreement of 2004, which was negotiated between the two Governments and accepted readily by Sinn Fein and the DUP. The SDLP led the campaign to highlight not just the inadequacies but the blatant injustices of the comprehensive agreement. Above all, we highlighted the fact that it would have provided, in effect, for a voluntary coalition between Sinn Fein and the DUP, with other parties effectively automatically excluded from office. I welcome the fact that both the DUP and Sinn Fein negotiators have now thought the better of that voluntary coalition deal. However, I regret that the mechanism for ensuring it in the comprehensive agreement by excluding other parties is still being championed, unfortunately, by my friend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and his party.
	There are many things that I would like to say, but I particularly want to question the Secretary of State on the transitional Assembly that will emerge after Friday. Will the Secretary of State outline to us whether that Assembly will be treated any differently from the current so-called Hain Assembly, which I understand will disappear on Friday? I would like to knowand many have asked mewhat extra influence this transitional Assembly will have over water, planning, education, the review of public administration and the Workplace 2010 proposals. Will this Assembly have any consultative role? Will it have any more authority than the Assembly that is being wound up on Friday?
	I shall now discuss some of the other injustices that remain in the Bill. We are, it seems, to face elections on 7 March if all goes well between now and then, but it is a startling fact, which has just emerged, that up to 100,000 people10 per cent. of the potential electoratestand to be disfranchised in those elections. I have heard the Secretary of State, in sedentary remarks, suggest that the people will have their say on 7 March. At that rate, only some people will have their say; 10 per cent. will not. We understand from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland that those 100,000 are missing from the register that will be used for the March election, compared with the register used for last year's elections to this House. That is no surprise, given that the public were relatively disengaged and were not, until now, fully aware that an election might emerge later next year. This year they were not expecting an election, and given that there is no carry-forward from last year's register, the reality is that many people just did not bother; they did not feel any need to register to vote.
	To make matters worse, unlike in Britain where registration can take place up to 11 days before polling, in Northern Ireland the last day for registration will be 11 January. I make that 55 days before the elections. There was nothing in the St. Andrews deal that required that or even referred to that. That is why the SDLP will continue to push, for a carry forward of voters from last year's election register. The right to vote is precious, and it is unacceptable that 100,000 people should be denied the right to vote come 7 March.
	It is no more acceptable that thousands upon thousands of our young people should be denied the right to an equal opportunity in education, yet that is exactly what the Bill does. The fact is that the 11-plus and academic selection in Northern Ireland are very significantly failing pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Only 7 per cent. of those attending grammar schools in Northern Ireland are from disadvantaged backgroundsby contrast, 28 per cent. of those in secondary schools are from such backgrounds. If the system were working fairly, one would expect roughly a 17 per cent. slice right through all schools. That is why I and my party colleagues welcomed the education order passed by the Government earlier this year, which would provide for an end to the 11-plus and an end to selection in post-primary education. But

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alasdair McDonnell: No, I am on a time constraint here. I am sorry.  [Interruption.] I have only two minutes left.
	In yet another concessionbut an unfortunate and cruel concessionto the DUP, the order also provided that if there was restoration of devolved government by 24 November, there would need to be a cross-community vote to confirm the ban on selection. It did not workthe 24 November deadline will not be metbut that is not the end of it. Astonishingly, clause 21 of the Bill goes even further, offering the DUP a veto on education reform if there is restoration by the new deadline of 26 March. It also appears to allow different rules to be made for different types of schools, to ensure that academic selection of the worst kind remains the order of the day.
	It is wrong for our education system to be thrown into chaos in that way, and I would plead with the Secretary of State not to do itnot to allow our children's education to be held to ransom. I have an eight-year-old child, a daughter, who, believe it or not, regularly asks me whether she will do the 11-plus, because her friends in her class at school, P4, do not quite know where they are. My daughter does not know what pathway will be available to her in three years' time; her teacher does not know; her mother, my wife, does not know; and I do not know, and that is representative of the situation for a whole tranche of eight-year-olds throughout Northern Ireland.
	Nothing in the St. Andrews agreement requires that confusion, and the Social Democratic and Labour party will oppose the clause that introduces it in Committee and at every other opportunity. It is tragic that the Democratic Unionist party is driving forward this awful education agenda, ironically ensuring the total neglect of the children of people in loyalist working-class areas, who are the very people from whom it demands. But that is the case not only in loyalist areas, but for all children, ensuring that they do not get the education opportunities that they deserve.
	Regardless of whether the issue is education, water, rural planning, the review of public administration or Workplace 2010, the people I talk to want devolution and they want it now. They want us to get a grip. I appeal to Sinn Fein and the DUP to stop their ritual hostage dance and to get on with things, because that is what ordinary people want. We want devolution, and we want it now.

Lady Hermon: Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is very kind of you to do so as we have only a brief time to complete our debate. It is a travesty that six and a half hours have been set aside for this Northern Ireland legislation. It has constitutional implications for Northern Irelandand I must say that I do not like the Bill one little bit. I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) that not only did the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) smile this afternoon, but he was certainly smiling on Thursday after the publication of the Bill. I do not wonder a bit about that because the Bill contains so much of what the Democratic Unionist party wanted it to contain.
	That has come at a very high price for the rest of us, because the people of Northern Ireland are fed up with direct rule. They are particularly fed up with having direct rule Ministers from the Labour party, because the Labour party does not organise or field candidates in Northern Ireland, and therefore the five current Northern Ireland Office Ministers are completely unaccountable to the people of Northern Ireland. That is not intended as a personal reflection on those who hold those offices, although I must say that if I were the Secretary of State I would be sincerely considering my position if I had read a High Court judgment of the tone, and with the depth of criticism, of that delivered by Mr. Justice Girvan in the Downes judicial review proceedings. Therefore, it is rather rich of the Secretary of State to come before the House and to talk about Sinn Fein delivering on policing and justice, when he knows that there are obligations on all Ministers to be candid, frank and open, and that they have an overarching duty to be honest with the courts. I must say that the credibility of the Secretary of State and the Government are in question.
	Today, in response to remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), the Secretary of State stood up at the Dispatch Box and glossed over the deadline of the 24 November. The commitment to that deadline was clearly given in this House on 26 April 2006. In a debate on the Northern Ireland Bill, the Secretary of State told the House:
	The Bill sets in statute 24 November as the date by which we must be able to restore devolution. That is the date by which the political parties in Northern Ireland must take responsibility for the Government of Northern Ireland, as they have been mandated to do.[ Official Report, 26 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 597.]
	The Bill before us today asks us once again to push the people of Northern Ireland to accept a change in a deadline. That is a moveable feast and it is not fair to the people of Northern Ireland, who desperately want a devolved Assembly to deal with issues such as water and water charging, their rates, their education and local government reorganisation. But there is a costthe people of Northern Ireland want the real Assembly, not a Hain Assembly or a transitional Assembly. Our current Assembly has been suspended since 2002; it has been suspended for four years, with salaries and allowances continuing to be paid to Members of the Legislative Assembly, which means that about 2 million per month is being paid for a suspended Assembly.
	The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to know that, at some stage, a deadline means a deadline. I listened very carefully to everything said by the hon. Member for Belfast, Eastas I always do, regardless of whether I agree with him, which I rarely doand by the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). From what they have said, as well as from other responses and interventions, it is clear to me and to the Government that the DUP does not regard the 26 March deadline as a deadline at all [Interruption.] DUP Members are nodding and making sedentary interventions confirming that. In fact, the only amendments that they have tabled this afternoon would move the 26 March deadline.
	I, for one, am absolutely weary with this Government setting deadlines and then blinking firstthey always blink first. The difficulty with blinking is that the Government's credibility is always on the line. The Prime Minister has

Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lady Hermon: No, I am sorry but I have limited time and I alone represent the Ulster Unionist party, and in fairness to it I shall not take any interventions on this occasion.
	The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) rightly put on the record the time spent, and the dedication given, by the Prime Minister to trying to sort out Northern Ireland affairs. It was not necessary to commit to an election, but the difficulty is that we have just undone what the Prime Minister promised the people of Northern Ireland. He and the Irish Prime Minister issued a joint statement on 6 April this year, in which they said:
	While it is reasonable to give the Assembly a little more time, there must be a clear limit. We said in January that a power-sharing Executive must be formed this year
	in 2006. As the Secretary of State said, that is a decisive year for Northern Ireland. The joint statement continued:
	If by 24 November the Assembly has failed to achieve this, we do not believe that any purpose would be served by a further election at that point or a few months later in May 2007. We do not think that the people of Northern Ireland should be asked to participate in elections to a deadlocked Assembly.
	By conceding to an election instead of a referendum following the St. Andrews agreement, we will, of course, get a deadlocked Assembly. We will have Sinn Fein writing its manifesto, putting in commitments to its constituents that will be unattainable in the context of the devolution of policing and justice, and, as the Secretary of State knows full well, the DUP will do exactly the same.
	We have a little taste of that in an article entitled Your Verdictwhat is it to be? posted on the DUP website, www.dup.org.uk. I want the Secretary of State to contradict what has been claimed by the leader of the DUP in that piece, a copy of which was, of course, enclosed with the  Belfast Today News Letter and the  Belfast Telegraph, and which had a tear-off strip. The leader of the DUP asked why he was regarded as enemy No. 1. The answer in the DUP publicityI was going to say propaganda, but let us be kindis:
	Because we are replacing the disastrous Belfast Agreement so that at last the people of Northern Ireland are to have a real say in their own future.
	To clear up any ambiguity, will the Secretary of State confirm for the record that there is absolutely no question of ripping up the Belfast agreement, and that what is being proposed would not in any way overturn what was agreed and voted on by thousands and thousands of people in 1998? That would be shameful. It was a cornerstone of the agreement that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were to be jointly elected. It was to say [Interruption.] Actually, joint election meant that the Unionist community had a veto over who was the Deputy First Minister. Now, by courtesy of caving in to the DUP, the Unionists [Interruption.] I am sorrylet us look at the Bill in detail later this evening. I would like the DUP to say why it did not table an amendment to clause 9 [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the  Hansard reporters if Members keep making sedentary interventions.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	It is shameful that the Government have stuffed through in a very short time today major constitutional changes [Interruption.] I am sorry, but people voted

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that it is extremely difficult for the  Hansard reporters to record correctly what takes place in the Chamber if numerous sedentary interventions are made and then accepted.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am most grateful to you. I am sorry that there have been so many sedentary interventions.
	I am trying to make the point that when people voted for the agreement, they voted for the First and Deputy First Ministers to be elected jointly. Through this Bill, we have now made a major change to that election and that procedure. Of course, we have also included policing and education. It is shameful that, in six and a half hours in this House, we are shoving through such changes and foisting them on the people of Northern Ireland. I ask the Secretary of State to respond to the points that have been made when he winds up.

Laurence Robertson: Before I begin, I have been asked to pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who made a speech earlier. He had to leave for other parliamentary business.  [Interruption.] He is indeed a great man.
	I have very little time and I do not know which of my various points I wish to make, so I shall perhaps start with a very general one. I do not know how many Statutory Instrument Committees I have sat on this year. It is usually one a weeksometimes twoand we have dealt with very important issues such as rating, local government reorganisation and education. Indeed, I understand that a statutory instrument on water will be considered on Tuesday. With the best will in the world, although I travel often to Northern Ireland I do not represent a constituency there, so this strikes me as a very unsatisfactory way of governing the Province, as I think Ministers will agree. It is therefore very important that we move towards devolution as quickly as possible, but I agree with my friends in the Democratic Unionist party that it has to be the right devolution settlement. If we look across the United Kingdom, we certainly do not see a uniform, or an entirely satisfactory, settlement. In Northern Ireland, the least that we should hope for is achieving the right settlement.
	There are concerns about the timetable. I understand why things have to be moved on, but like other Members present, I wonder when exactly Sinn Fein will act on its obligation. It will have to be soon, in order to give it time to prove to everyone else that it means it, but I can see no immediate prospect of that. That concerns me, because support for the police is absolutely crucial. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) was perhaps slightly misinterpreted earlier, but I think that he was saying that a British police force represents people, whether they are Scottish, Welsh, English or from Northern Ireland.

Andrew MacKinlay: indicated assent.

Laurence Robertson: It is their police forcenot ours, imposing a judgment on them. It is very important that those who seek to control that police force at least support it and recognise its legitimacy.
	In the few seconds left to me, I want to echo the desire that was expressed for a return to normal politics in Northern Ireland. Having studied the past situation in South Africa and Rwanda, I know that it was important for those countries to move onto move away from sectarianism. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland we have institutionalised it, so while there might be good reasons for power sharing at the moment, I hope that we can move toward something more like the Westminster modela Government and an Oppositionrather than everybody being in government or everybody being in opposition. The hon. Member for Thurrock said that the playground has to be big enough for everybody to fit into it, but in the long term that is not necessarily the best way of going about things.
	It is not deadlines that will achieve lasting peace in Northern Irelandit is hearts and minds. People have to want peace and to be genuine about it, and I really hope that we have got to that position. I fear that there is a little work left to do before we get there, but in general terms I wish the Bill well and I hope that we get the chance to explore it in a little more detail in a few minutes' time. I apologise to the House for the brevity of my remarks.

David Hanson: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Because of the programme motion, I have very little time in which to respond, but I hope to deal with the points that were made as best I can in that time.
	I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell)and, indeed, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson)in that Northern Ireland is best governed when governed locally by an elected Assembly. I happen to think, rather modestly, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are doing a reasonable job, but I recognise that we are not elected or accountable in Northern Ireland, and we cannot be removed by the people there, so we have to get devolution back. That is the whole purpose of today's proceedings.
	I want to ensure that I get on the record my responses to the important points made by the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Belfast, East, who both touched the accountability of Ministers and how the ministerial code and such accountability will work. Both asked the Secretary of State to confirm that the intention of the clauses dealing with the ministerial code is to ensure that the decisions set out in what will be section 20 (3) and (4) will be ones for the Executive to make, not for individual or junior Ministers. I can confirm that subsection (5) of new section 28A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 will make it clear that the new code
	must include provision for requiring Ministers or junior Ministers to bring to the attention of the Executive Committee any matter that ought, by virtue of section 20 (3) or (4), to be considered by the Committee.
	That makes it clear that such matters are for the Executive committee, and that all Ministers have a duty to refer them to it.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked the Secretary of State to confirm that a decision that by virtue of section 20(3) or (4) ought to be brought to the attention of, and considered by, the Executive committee, is not validly taken without the approval of the Executive committee, and that without such approval, a Minister has no ministerial authority to take such a decision. I can confirm that subsection (6) of new section 28A requires the new code to establish a procedure to enable a Minister to check whether a decision that he proposes to take should properly fall to the Executive committee for consideration. If Ministers are in any doubt, they should avail themselves of the new procedure.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked whether a Minister has ministerial authority to take a decision that is properly brought to the Executive committee under a provision of the ministerial code, but on which the Executive committee is unable to agree. The Bill makes clear what issues Ministers are required to bring to the Executive, and places a legal duty on them to do so. It also places a duty on the Executive to decide how to handle issues that fall within their remit, either by consensus or by cross-community vote. I am labouring these points because I know that they are important to the hon. Gentleman and his party.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked the Secretary of State to indicate the status of a ministerial decision taken without ministerial authority. I can confirm that in such a case, the decision would have been taken in contravention of the code itself. As such, it would not be a legitimate decision and would be open to legal challenge. The Minister himself would also be liable to the existing procedures under the 1998 Act.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked the Secretary of State to confirm that, by virtue of the arrangements put in place by the Bill, details relating to the North/South Ministerial Council or any matter involving relationships with the Republic of Ireland will require Executive approval. I can confirm that such matters will be referred to under the ministerial code that applied until suspension, and will require Executive agreement. Under the arrangements provided for in the Bill, decisions taken without Executive agreement would not be legitimate and would be open to legal challenge.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether any significant strategic or controversial decisions will fall outside the category of decision that could require discussion by, and the agreement of, the Executive committee. Under new section 24, the Executive would have the function of discussing and agreeing on any significant or controversial matterand indeed, the code requires that such matters be brought before the Executive committee for consideration.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked about de minimis level engaging of human rights, equality or economic policy issues being regarded as matters that cut across the responsibility of two or more Ministers. It is difficult to answer that question, but I hope that the new code will include a procedure to enable Ministers to check whether a decision should properly fall to the Executive committee. His final point was whether any decision involving expenditure would require discussion and agreement by the Executive committee. The answer is yes.
	Today's proceedings lay the foundation for what I believe is a historic Bill and a historic decision, which looks toward restoring devolution and lays the framework for power sharing and for Sinn Fein recognition of and support for the police. That, in itself, would be a historic shift. The right hon. Member for North Antrim, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and indeed other hon. Members have strongly emphasised the need for that aspect to be placed on the record, in relation both to power sharing and to police recognition by Sinn Fein.
	I look forward to the Assembly meeting on Friday this week, when I hope that steps will be taken to put us on the road to ensuring that devolution is back in place by 26 March next year. I welcome the commitment of the right hon. Member for North Antrimand, indeed, the Member for Belfast, Westto this process and the work that has been done. I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to every point, because of the time available, but I am pleased to say that major steps are now being taken towards restoration of devolution. The Bill is the foundation for it and I am confident that, with the good will that I know exists between all parties, we will move towards devolution and restoration, in due course, by 26 March. Those who want devolved power exercised in Northern Ireland by local politicians, many of whom are in their places today, will welcome that.
	 It being Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Bill [allocation of time] motion, Madam Deputy Speaker  put the Question, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sylvia Heal  in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	  
	Compliance or non-compliance with St Andrews Agreement timetable

Nigel Dodds: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 2, line 10, after '2007,', insert
	'or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State,'.

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 44, in page 2, line 11, after '2007', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 45, in page 2, line 17, after '2007', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 46, in clause 27, page 20, line 24, after '2007', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 47, in schedule 1, page 21, line 29, after '2007', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 48, in page 22, line 10, after '2007', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 49, in page 22, line 33, after '2007', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 50, in page 22, line 40, after '2007', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 51, in page 23, line 8, leave out '2007)' and insert
	'2007, or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State)'.
	No. 52, in page 24, line 39, after '2007', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 53, in page 25, line 33, leave out '2007)' and insert
	'2007, or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State)'.
	No. 54, in page 25, line 34, after '2007', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 55, in page 26, line 3, after '2007', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 56, in page 26, line 10, after '2007,', insert
	'or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 57, in page 26, line 22, after '2007', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 58, in page 26, line 28, after '2007,', insert
	', or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State'.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome the opportunity of moving the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the associated amendments in the group. The purpose is to insert the words
	or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State
	after the date of 26 March, as set out in the clause. The issue of the timetable in the St. Andrews agreement has already been debated on Second Reading. I know that the Secretary of State was not present throughout that debate, so he may not have heard the contributions of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who made it clear that, as far as the DUP is concerned, we are condition led, not deadline led.
	Devolution must be on the right terms, not imposed at a time set by the Secretary of State or by any piece of legislation. When devolution happens, the conditions must be ripe. We have made it clear previously and in today's debate that the notion of Unionists, particularly the DUP, being dragooned or forced into taking a decision on power sharing or devolution that does not meet the conditions set out in our manifesto or put before the people is something that simply will not happen.

Peter Robinson: Was my hon. Friend as disturbed as I was by the remarks of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)the Ulster Unionist party's sole Member in the Housewhen she said that, come what may, the timetable had to be adhered to? Is the UUP telling the people of Northern Ireland that even if Sinn Fein delivers nothing, it should be in government on 26 March?

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The hon. Lady's remarksI am sorry that she is not in her place at the momentcertainly outlined that position. For some time, the UUPa party that let Sinn Fein-IRA representatives into Government at a time when they had not decommissioned any weaponry and were still engaged in criminality, terrorism and even murderhas believed, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has made clear, that devolution should be up and running regardless of whether Sinn Fein has delivered on what it needs to deliver even under the terms of the St. Andrews agreement between the two Governments. My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that, faced with that choice, the Unionist population of Northern Ireland will be reassured to know that this Democratic Unionist party will stick to the pledges that we have made to the people and the manifesto position that we outlined. We will also stick to the position recently conveyed to the Government by our central executive committee.

Lembit �pik: For the sake of claritythough it already seems clear to mewill the hon. Gentleman confirm that whatever is decided about the 24 November deadline cannot be taken as an indication that the DUP is buying into the deadlines set up in the Bill for March?

Nigel Dodds: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it strikes me as a bit rich to be talking to DUP Members about signing up to deadlines when it is quite clear that Sinn Fein has signed up to absolutely nothing as far as policing is concerned. Indeed it has not only failed to sign up, but has retreated from what we were told was its position at St. Andrews. As to the timetable, the Secretary of State and other Ministers have told us that there are certain dates by which certain things have to happen and that if they do not happen, there will be consequences. When faced with the question of when Sinn Fein is going to call an executive, when Sinn Fein is ready to convene a conference and when the testing period can beginso that Unionists can gain some confidence that those people really are changing and should be admitted into governmentwe are met with silence, evasion and vague statements. Time and again today, questions have been asked about when the conference to be called by Sinn Fein has to happen in order for a credible period of testing to commence, particularly if 26 March is not to be a meaningless date.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend accept that DUP Members are disquieted by the Secretary of State's evasion on three occasions of a question about the time that he believed would be required for Sinn Fein to hold its conference and make a decision on policing? That sends the wrong signal to Sinn Fein, too.

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend is rightthat was precisely the point that I was making. The Secretary of State and Ministers refuse to make any demands on Sinn Fein about the commitment even to calling a conference to adopt a resolution or a position on policing. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I would welcome his coming to the Dispatch Box now and telling us when Sinn Fein has to call its conference so that we can have a credible period of testing before 26 March. Again, he refuses to accept the challenge. We have noted his evasion and the people of Northern Ireland will be rightly concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The earlier intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in the absence of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) pointed up the contradiction in the position of the Ulster Unionist party. On the one hand it says that it wants the Government to stick by deadlines, and on the other that if the conditions are not met, we will end up with devolution through having people in government who do not support the police and the rule of law. Does my hon. Friend agree that the outcome of the scenario painted by the hon. Lady, if we accept the deadline, is reverting to plan B in the event of no devolution, which means joint authority? Is that now the policy of the Ulster Unionist party?

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend has raised important questions, which only the hon. Member for North Down can answer. I am sorry that she did not take the opportunity in the previous debate to allow an exchange about those policies. There is no doubt that the position of the Ulster Unionist party is that the deadline must be met, regardless of the conditions. We will not fall into that trap, which would catch only the most naive.

Lady Hermon: I should like to correct the record, especially given that I was not in the Chamber when the first attack was made on me by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who obviously was not smiling at the time. Every time the Government move a deadline, Sinn Fein moves. It takes two to tangothe DUP and Sinn Feinand there must be mutual trust. An Irish Government election will take place next spring, and it is obvious to me that every time the Government move a deadline and show that they will blink first, Sinn Fein also moves. That is the problem with moving deadlines, not that conditions are unmet. It gives a clear signal to Sinn Fein that every time it goes to No. 10, it can change the mind of whoever happens to be Prime Minister. That is the problem.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Lady appears to say that if one sets a deadline, the parties should stick to it and agree on 26 March to form a devolved Government. That appears to be her position and she does not dissent from it. Our position is that we are not bound by a deadline unless the conditions are rightunless criminality and paramilitarism are finished and the structures are gone, unless there is support for policing, the criminal justice system and the courts of law, and that is proved over a period of testing. We will wait and see. We will judge those matters by the action and inaction of Sinn Fein and the IRA, not by any dates set by the Secretary of State or in legislation.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Sinn Fein position on policing. The Bill is crystal clearit could not be clearerabout the necessity for Sinn Fein to sign up to all the specifics of policing spelled out in paragraph 6 of the St. Andrews agreement and enshrined in clause 7. The Bill is the first measure to do that. I would have thought that he would give credit for that. In my view, Sinn Fein needs to call an ard fheis sooner rather than later. I shall not get into discussing specific weeks or days, because that would not be helpful. The end process is that Sinn Fein candidates who hope to be Ministers must accept the pledge of office, as spelled out in clause 7.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's intervention, although we are well aware of what the Bill provides about the pledge of office on 25 March. However, he knows that, for the DUP, it is not simply a matter of making a pledge. Anyone who wants to be in government, especially Sinn Fein, must prove over a credible testing period that they are committed, not only in word but in action, to supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the courts and the rule of law. He appears to claim that, as long as Sinn Fein signs up to a pledge on 25 March, everything in the garden is rosy, even if it makes the pledge or holds an ard fheis only on the previous day or in the previous week. That is not satisfactory to us, the Unionist people or the people of Northern Ireland.

Mark Durkan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the obvious question that arises from the Secretary of State's intervention is whether the right hon. Gentleman expects the ard fheis to take place, or believes that it should, before or after the election on 7 March? Is not there a crazy position whereby the Secretary of State tells us that the people will be asked to endorse a deal on the basis of the DUP talking about all the things that are not happening and that it does not believe exist, and Sinn Fein not having signed up to policing or held an ard fheis and setting all sorts of terms and pre-conditions? How are the general public meant to make sense of that if the Secretary of State cannot make sense of it for us in the House today?

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. Some people might wonder in those circumstances whether an election will advance anything. If the Assembly is dissolved on 30 January and we begin an election campaign while still awaiting a conference on policing, does anyone seriously suggest that we can tell the people of Northern Ireland that we will be in a position on 26 March to achieve some sort of devolution including such people as members of Sinn Fein? Many people believe that the time is rapidly passing for Sinn Fein to start delivering on policing, criminality and paramilitarism if it is to be taken seriously through a credible period of testing.

Peter Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State has specific powers under the Bill to stop the process if he is not satisfied that sufficient progress is being made for devolution to come about on 26 March? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to answer the following question when he responds to the debate: would he call a halt to an election process if Sinn Fein had not held its ard fheis and made a decision before the election period?

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has raised the matter as leader of the SDLP, my hon. Friend has just raised it and the House will expect a response from the Secretary of State to that specific question.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. I do not judge the DUP on the matter. I should love it to go along with the deadlines but it would be pointless for me to push that. Can he conceive of circumstances in which the conditions that the DUP requires to be met could be fulfilled in the available time? Does he believe that it is possible? What would be the DUP's timetable for requiring the conditions to be met? Can he be specific, if possible, about what he needs from Sinn Fein for the DUP to believe that the conditions have been fulfilled in time for the election?

Nigel Dodds: Having castigated people for setting deadlines, I will not get into the business of starting to set them. That would be a grievous error. If we have learned anything, it is that we should not get into that game.
	On the hon. Gentleman's first question about whether such things are possible or probable, I repeat what I said: with every day that passes, it becomes increasingly difficult to convince people that the necessary movement and delivery will be achieved in policing, criminality and paramilitarism and all the other issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East and others have mentioned already in the debate.
	These are not new issues. They must be delivered on, but we must have a period when people in Northern Ireland are truly convinced not only by word but by action that those matters have been dealt with. If they are not dealt with and people are not convinced, we will again have another recipe for collapse and crash, and no one wants that to happen. When we move, we must be certain that we are doing so on the basis of some kind of real delivery, so that people can be relatively convinced that it is the time to move. However, we must also ensure, as has also been mentioned, that any new devolution process includes a proper sanction or default mechanism. If anyone does not fulfil their obligations, there must be an effective mechanism to ensure that the whole thing does not collapse and that the people who are responsible for the default are punished.
	The amendment presents the Secretary of State with a choice. Is he honestly and genuinely saying that the 26 March is an absolute cut-off date and that he will bring the entire process to an end even if Sinn Fein has not called its conference or has not made sufficient progress on policing, because it has decided to draw out the process and to refuse to give and deliver on the issues on which everyone knows it must deliver? Is he honestly saying that that is the Government's position? Is it not more sensible to include a provision in the legislation that accepts the reality that, if the conditions are not right, we must continue to work with the progress that has been made to ensure that the delivery happens and that, at the right time, we can move forward on a stable basis with devolution?
	We have referred to the issues during interventions. It is clear what must happen in the period between now and 26 March. There must be delivery by Sinn Fein in support of policing. We know what is in the pledge, but we also know that there must be delivery in terms of people supporting the police and encouraging others to give information to the police. People have rightly said that one of the litmus tests is the McCartney case and whether or not the provisional movement is prepared to give up people.
	We have heard some discussion of the devolution of policing and justice. Sinn Fein appears to be setting a precondition that it will not hold any conference unless it has a date from the DUP on the timetable for policing and justice. Sinn Fein requires of the DUP some agreement on the modalities of the type of department that will administer policing and justice. It also requires of the Government delivery in respect of MI5 and other issues. No doubt, it has thrown a number of other issues into the pot as well.
	It has been said todaylet me repeat it for the Secretary of State, who may not have been here when it was said previouslythat the DUP does not regard the devolution of policing and justice as happening any time soon. It would be complete madness to believe that a newly created Assembly would somehow be made more stable with the devolution of such powers, no matter about the modalities of how those powers would be administered. For anyone to suggest that some kind of arrangement should allow Sinn Fein members anywhere near the administration of policing and justice in a devolved settlement is simply ludicrous.
	I have said before in the Chamber and in a Committee upstairs how long that period might be in my viewa political lifetimeand I repeat it for those who think that perhaps I shy away from doing so. I believe that many people in Northern Ireland would be totally appalled at the notion of the likes of Gerry Kelly and Martin McGuinness being in charge of policing and justice. I know the reaction of the House if anyone were to suggest that those who were involved in the current campaign of bombing in London and Britainno matter what words they might utter or however much they say that they have repentedshould at any time be placed in charge of or have influence over the administration of policing and justice on the mainland. People would be absolutely appalled at such a notion. People in Northern Ireland are entitled to reassurance on that matter, and on that matter, we give them that reassurance. If Sinn Fein is upset by that, so be it.
	Sinn Fein's argument appears to be that it is unreasonable to ask it to support policing while denying it control or influence over the police. To be fair to the SDLP and to large sections of the nationalist community, they were prepared to come forward and sign on for policing, to support policing and to encourage people to give evidence to the police and to join the police without any demand that they should have control over the devolution of policing and justice. Sinn Fein makes a different demand: it will support policing when it gets control. People only get control when there is confidence in the community and they earn the trust of the community. That is not to be bargained with.

Mark Durkan: Is it not the case that we have no demand or requirement for the devolution of justice and policing at ministerial level? Clearly, the Good Friday agreement envisaged that, as did the Patten report, but it recommended the establishment of the Policing Board to do the job for a number of years, with the devolution of justice and policing to follow. That is why we want the devolution of justice and policing to follow the good work of the Policing Board.

Nigel Dodds: I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman says: the SDLP has views, demands and policies on the issue, but it did not make them a precondition for the support of policing.

Mark Durkan: Nor did Patten.

Nigel Dodds: That is quite right. The SDLP did not make such things preconditions for going on to the Policing Board or for supporting the policeI give it credit for thatbut, as always, Sinn Fein wishes to extract a price.

Gregory Campbell: Is not the important point not that all the democrats in all the other political parties are quite prepared to support the police without making any preconditions about getting their hands on the leverage of policing and justice but that only Sinn Fein says that it will begin the process of supporting the police when it alone gets its hands on policing and justice?

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend has summed up the issue very succinctly, and people should therefore be in no doubt where we stand on that issue.
	The other issues that need to be dealt with are criminality and paramilitarism. I have read newspaper reports and articles that no demands are made as part of the St. Andrews process. I have heard the statement made that it contains no demand for any kind of dismantling of terrorist structures, or that criminality is not an issue. Of course those things are included. That is why an Independent Monitoring Commission report is built in and why there is the testing period. If anyone is in any doubt about that, they should look at all the statements that have been made by members of the DUP in recent weeks and months in relation to all those matters. Indeed, people do not even have to believe the words that we have spoken: next time they meet the Justice Minister and Tanaiste, as he is now, in the Irish Republic, they can refer him to what he said about the continued existence of the IRA army council and the continued possession by the IRA of massive amounts of money

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the amendments are about delaying the restoration orders under clause 2, and that the broader remarks that he is making about policing should be related to that aspect of his amendment.

Nigel Dodds: I thank you, Mrs. Heal, and I will make my remarks in the context of the amendment.
	If we are to have a date other than 26 March for the possible restoration of devolution, it is necessary to concentrate on the conditions that must be fulfilled to allow devolution to occur. We have dealt with the policing issue, and I now refer to the paramilitarism issue that must be dealt with, which members of my party are on record as saying over and over again. On the issue of criminality, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim has made it clear that criminal assets would have to be handed over and those responsible given up. Those are serious issues, which cannot be swept under the carpet and will have to be dealt with. That is why the Secretary of State needs to consider carefully the 26 March deadline. Even tonight, some 10 weeks, including Christmas, before an election campaign begins in Northern Ireland, it is hard to imagine going from door to door and convincing people that somehow all those things have been delivered. I also remind the Secretary of State of the other outstanding matters that my party has brought to his attention, which must be delivered too.
	I urge the House to adopt this and a series of amendments, which will build into the Bill a flexibility that anyone who considers the position in Northern Ireland objectively will accept must be accommodated.

Mark Durkan: I oppose amendment No. 43 and the other amendments grouped with it.
	It is clear from the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) that the amendment is an attempt to ensure a dissolution of the key deadline of 26 March. I have no doubt that the Government will oppose the amendment, although, as we have seen previously, the Government's attitude on such matters has melted subsequently. The Secretary of State and Ministers have presented all sorts of measures as absolute necessities and unbudgeable requirements only to withdraw them subsequently. We have probably had more withdrawals from Ministers than we would get from an automatic telling machine.
	That has created a situation in which the DUP has the expectation that the deadline can slip yet again. Unfortunately, it probably takes some encouragement in that from the fact that there has been slippage on St. Andrews already. As I indicated, a programme for government committee was meant to meet on 17 November, but it only met on 20 November for the first time. The week of 20 November was meant to see an ard chomhairle meeting of Sinn Fein followed by a clear statement in relation to policing. We did not see that. Parties were meant to indicate endorsement of the deal and a definitive commitment to restore power sharing. We did not see that. On 24 November, we are meant to get the nomination of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Instead, it appears, from what the Secretary of State said, that we might get indications. The problemand I hope that the Secretary of State will address this in his remarksis that the DUP will only take encouragement from that, and the later deadline in the process will equally be bucked.
	I welcome the Government's saying that the deadline is an absolute one. If they believe in deadlines, however, they need not only to hold firm to the 26 March deadline but to clarify some other interim deadlines on the way. If there is to be an election on 7 March, are the requirements as to the conditions for that clear? Will the Secretary of State say, for instance, that we will not proceed with the election if either the IMC report is bad or the DUP's reaction to the IMC report is bad? Will there be an election willy-nilly, no matter what the IMC report says, or what the DUP says about the IMC report? If there is an election, what are the implications for the deadline of 26 March if a mandate is secured to defy that deadline? That is the conundrum created by the way in which the timetable, some of which is unspecifiednot least in relation to Sinn Fein's position on policingis set out. Do the Government require or intend Sinn Fein to have taken a definitive position on policing before an election? What will be the position regarding appointments to the Policing Board and so on after restoration?
	Those matters could be sensibly clarified to remove many of the fears and concerns, and many of the calculations for partisan advantage, which would give the public real confidence. If people were able to join up the dots, and fill in all the gaps and blanks in the process, that would do more for public confidence than side deals and concessions in relation to education and other matters. We hear the DUP indicating that it is also looking for other side deals. The Government have a habit of making such concessions in the name of building public confidence. They will not build public confidence, however, if there is a question about exactly what the process and the agreement mean. They need to clarify what it requires, what will happen and by when it will happen, so that the public can vote, safe in the knowledge that those things have happened and will be delivered.
	In supporting the Government in rejecting the amendments, I ask them not just to be firm about the deadline but to be a lot firmer and clearer about the requirements of the process, and not to allow slipperiness from parties, which will just result in Ministers appearing at the Dispatch Box to justify embarrassing slippage yet again.

Alan Reid: With the amendments, the DUP is trying to push back the date by which the Assembly should be up and running and the Executive formed. The timetable set out in the St. Andrews agreement is that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should be nominated by 24 November, and the rest of the Ministers in the Executive by 14 March, with power set to be restored to the Assembly on 26 March. If that timetable is not followed, schedule 3 of the Bill comes into effect, which would mean that the Assembly would be dissolved. The DUP amendments would allow the Secretary of State to let that deadline slip.
	We have criticised the Government previously for allowing deadlines to slip, so we would certainly not be willing to support amendments providing for the expectation that the current timetable will fail. The incentive of a deadline, which, if not met, would mean that the Assembly would be dissolved, is needed to persuade the parties to move and to reach agreement. The Government must convince us all, however, that the deadline is real, as unless the parties believe that, we will simply not see agreement. The DUP, in moving the amendment, has shown that its mindset is to expect the 26 March date to be pushed further back. I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear that that is a real deadline.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) to understand the DUP mindset a little better on the issue.
	The amendment relates to dates and deadlines, and today's debate has focused a lot on dates and deadlines. The date of 12 August 1970 is etched in my memory as the day that the troubles of Northern Ireland came crashing into my home, my family and my life. It was the day on which my cousin Samuel, a young constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was murdered by the IRA. He was the first police officer in Northern Ireland to die at the hands of the IRA in what has become known as the troubles. No one has ever been brought to justice for Samuel's murder. He was a young Christian police officer doing his duty. Indeed, my family received hundreds of cards from the community in Crossmaglen, and from Roman Catholics in Crossmaglen, expressing sympathy.
	The local chapel in Crossmaglen held a special memorial service for Samuel, and for the young officer, Roy Millar, who died with him that day on a lonely countryside road in South Armagh. Little did we know then that, some 15 years later, in February 1985, Samuel's brother Alexander, a chief inspector in the RUC, would also lose his life in the mortar attack on Newry police station, when nine RUC officers, men and women, lost their lives. That atrocity saw the greatest loss of police officers' lives in the troubles.
	I share those things with the House to highlight the importance of policing to me, as an individual and as a Member of Parliament representing constituents who have experienced losses as a result of the troubles and who carry the scars, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) referred to in his remarks, of the many atrocities and incidents that have unfortunately been the landmarks of the last 35 or 36 years in Northern Ireland. I need to know that the people that my party will be sharing government with in the future are committed to supporting the police and the rule of law. I need to know that the men who were behind the murder of Samuel and Alex Donaldson and almost 300 other police officers in the course of the troubles in Northern Irelandwhose murders were sanctioned by people who today are in the leadership of Sinn Feinhave crossed the line and embraced democracy.
	My family did not get justice. No one was ever brought before the courts for those two murders, and yet I want to know that, for my family, we are going to get peace and stability for the long term. That is why the amendment is important to me. In the end, it is not deadlines that will bring peace to the people I represent, to my family and to those who have survived the troubles; it is what people do, it is the changes that are necessary and the conditions that we all require as members of a society that has suffered so much. It is the conditions being met that is important.
	Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) indicated, if Sinn Fein moves soon, we may have a reasonable period of time over which to judge whether what it says in its ard fheis is what it does on the ground in terms of supporting the police and the rule of law. We have not had a definitive answer from the Secretary of State this evening about what would happen in the kind of scenario that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised: if Sinn Fein does not hold that ard fheis and does not give its support to the police and the rule of law before an election, what does that mean for the election? Will the Secretary of State still proceed with the election, or will it be postponed? Is that one of the moments that he talked about earlier when we run out of track in this process? There is a lack of clarity on that issue. Members of the Democratic Unionist party, who will be expected to fight that election, along with the hon. Members representing the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Ulster Unionist party, are entitled to know where we stand on that issue. If Sinn Fein does not have its ard fheis before the election, will the election proceed? Those issues are important.
	Surely the Secretary of State cannot be suggesting to the DUP that, if Sinn Fein holds its ard fheis on 24 or 25 March, within hours of the deadline for devolution of 26 March, we should accept that as demonstrating clearly the bona fides of Sinn Fein in giving its support to the police. I am sorry, but my family and the people I represent could not accept that as a sufficient period in which to make that judgment call. For years, in district councils up and down Northern Ireland, when Sinn Fein councillors have been elected to office, they have stood up and given an oath that they will not do anything to support unlawful activity, but there have been Sinn Fein councillors who have been convicted of unlawful activity. They take that pledge, as it were, but in the past they have not always fulfilled it. We need to know that Ministers who take pledges in a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland will honour those pledges. Before that happens, we need to have a reasonable period of time in which to know that Sinn Fein has not only said in words that it supports the police and the courts, but has followed that up in deeds.
	I say all that because I want to see progress made in Northern Ireland. I want to see this matter settled and a devolved Government in place. Despite what the IRA has done to my family and my community, if Sinn Fein crosses the line and supports the police and the rule of law, if the IRA ends its paramilitarism and criminality for good, and the structures of terrorism are progressively dismantledand those things are demonstrated not just in word, but in deedI am prepared to accept that Sinn Fein is in the Government of Northern Ireland and that we have to share power with it.
	That is a personal mountain that I have to climb, and a personal mountain that the people I represent have to climb. Recently, in our civic centre in Lisburn, I had a meeting with some police officers. It was not a political meeting. We were marking the retirement from his post of our district police commander. I sat and talked to some of the officers. One of them was disabled. He is one of my constituents and he has shown great courage. He was left badly disabled as a result of an IRA mortar attack in Newry in which one of his colleagues lost her life. As I was talking to him, the conversation came round to the issue of Sinn Fein in government and its support for the police. That man, who will carry the scars of our conflict to his gravelong may he be spared to livesaid to me that he was prepared to support the DUP going into government, but in circumstances in which it was clear that there was support for the police and the rule of law.
	That is why it is important that the Government do not get hung up on the deadline of 26 March. I say in all sincerity to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that I hope that the Ulster Unionist party does not get hung up on deadlines either. We need people to stand together on this issue. What matters is the quality of what is delivered, not some arbitrary date that has been plucked out of the air. What matters is that we get long-term stability for her children, my children and the people we represent so that this time things are copper-fastened, the foundations are strong, and what the Secretary of State referred to earlier as the pillars or the cornerstones of this process are set in concrete, not sand. That is crucial.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North has eloquently outlined why the DUP believes that it is important that the process is condition-led, progress-led and meaningful, and that it is not simply about setting an arbitrary date. We are not in the business of crashing through deadlines simply for the sake of it. We are not the joyriders of the peace process and I should say to the hon. Member for Foyle that we are not interested in drive-by attacks on deadlines or anything like that. We want progress and a real settlement. We want to see the issue settled once and for all, whether on 26 March, 26 April, 26 May or wheneverperhaps on 12 July.
	I hope that the House will give serious consideration to what we are about. This is not about the DUP wanting to get off a hook, because we are not on a hook. It is not about the DUP simply wanting to crash through deadlines for the sake of it, or being obstructionist. It is about making real progress in Northern Ireland and ensuring that people who have made lots of promises in the past, but have failed to deliver at the end of the day, really do deliver this time. That is vital for our future. It is vital that those who are in Garnerville today training to be the new recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and their colleagues who are on the ground tonight, whether in my constituency or any other part of Northern Ireland, know that they will not have to face what their colleagues in the past, in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, had to face with great courage and valour, but at a huge price. I do not want any more police officers to die in Northern Ireland because we have failed to get this right.

Ian Paisley: Schedule 1, paragraph 1 tells us that there will be a transitional Assembly, which will meet on 24 November. However, it does not say, as many hon. Members have tried to suggest tonight, that at that meeting nominations will be made for either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister. Further down the page, the Bill states:
	The proceedings to be conducted by the Transitional Assembly shall include the making of nominations
	but it does not say that nominations must be made on 24 Novemberin fact, no business is set down for 24 November. Later, the schedule talks about the draft ministerial code. I would therefore like the Secretary of State to explain how the idea got started that all those nominations must be made on that date. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was eager to see what would happen, and I promised her a Paris bun, I think it was, if she attended the meeting.

Mark Durkan: The right hon. Gentleman may accept that many people are relying on paragraph 10 of the St. Andrews agreement, which states:
	the Assembly will meet to nominate the First and Deputy First Minister on 24 November.
	It also states that
	in the event of failure to reach agreement by the 24 November we will proceed on the basis of
	other partnership arrangements. Furthermore, the timetable in annexe D to the agreement states, under the date 24 November:
	Assembly meets to nominate FM/DFM.

Ian Paisley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is trying to elevate that bit of white paper, which was drawn up between two Governments and does not bind this House in the least. Only when it has gone through the House and become law is it to be obeyed. He is now advocating that, every time the southern Government and the UK Government put out a wee bit of white paper, I have to bow my neck to it. It will not be done. That is all I have to say.

Sammy Wilson: First, let me make it clear that the amendment is not about putting off devolution or trying to avoid the hard decisions in which devolution is likely to involve Unionists. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has already made it clear that, as far as the DUP is concerned, if the conditions that we believe are necessary for parties to be able to participate in devolution in Northern Ireland are met, we wish to see devolution and we will participate in devolution, even with parties that we do not like being in government with

Ian Paisley: They do not want to be in government with us.

Sammy Wilson: Yes, they have made that clear. The amendment is not an attempt to put off the decision on devolution.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) seemed to be concerned that the amendment would simply push back the date for devolution. In fact, the amendment is designed to ensure that, if devolution is possible, it will happen and it will be sustainable. He was concerned about the failure of the timetable, but we believe that the timetable is likely to lead to a failure of any ability to have devolution, because it is set against a background in which there is no guarantee.
	The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will not even set an expectation for when Sinn Fein should make a commitment to support policing in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman's evasiveness on that point will not help to create the conditions in which Sinn Fein is able to give the community in Northern Ireland the assurance that the party has truly changed its position on policing. It behoves him to stop that ambivalence. In the past, in the face of what the parties all around him were saying, he insisted that he would not set a new precondition for devolution, so he avoided saying whether Sinn Fein had to be committed to policing. That was less than five months ago. Now, he has bowed to the arguments and accepted that devolution is not possible without support for policing, but he will not spell out to Sinn Fein that it must give an early commitment to policing and prove that it supports the police.
	If we abide by the timetable laid down, Sinn Fein could, as some hon. Members have said, hold its conference and make its commitment to devolution the day before the Assembly is up and running. Judging by the debate so far, the Secretary of State believes that, the next day, Sinn Fein Members could walk in, take a pledge and, hey presto, that would be what is meant by making a commitment to policing. However, the DUP believes that making that pledge should be the culmination of Sinn Fein's transition from a party that is opposed to the police, does not support the police, discourages people from joining the police and has been hostile to the police. It is the culmination of a process: first, Sinn Fein accepts that it has an obligation to support the police; then it fulfils that obligation by doing something in the interim period; and finally its Ministers make the pledge to support the police. The pledge is not the start of the process, but its culmination.
	That means that time will be required. As long as the Secretary of State allows Sinn Fein to put off the day on which it starts that process, the timetable for devolution will be elongated. It has to be, if there is to be confidence in any devolution settlement that is finally arrived at. That is why the Secretary of State was pressed today to say when he wants Sinn Fein to start that process. Is it this month? Is it before Christmas? Is it January? The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) even asked the Secretary of State to tell us whether it is before the election or after it. We could not get a response from the Secretary of State.
	The reason why there must be a testing period for Sinn Fein is that people in Northern Irelandand certainly not those in the Unionist communitydo not believe the words that Sinn Fein speaks. I sat as a member of Belfast city council from 1981. In 1985 or 1986, all members were supposed to pledge to support non-violence and to oppose the use of violence to pursue political ends. During that period, after they took that pledge, I heard Sinn Fein members justify the bombing of Belfast and defend the murder by the IRA of some council members and council workers. Their words did not mean a thing. That is why there must be a testing period.
	Sinn Fein has established a situation in which there is no trust. We do not want a repetition of what has happened in the past two years. Let me give three instances, one of which has already been mentioned. The police raided the home of a prominent IRA man, where they found a laptop and money. He had been involved in criminality. Gerry Adams, the Member for Belfast, West, who does not come to this House, condemned the police and the Garda in the Irish Republic for raiding the home of a farmer, saying that he was being persecuted for his republican views and was only trying to make an honest living. The leader of Sinn Fein defended his criminal activity and opposed those who tried to bring him to justice for it. Today, 1 million-worth of his assets have been seized.
	A young girl was raped in Gerry Adams' constituency, a video was taken of her rape on her telephone, and the pictures were sent to her mother. When he was asked whether the perpetrators should be turned in to the police and the people who know their names should give evidence to the police, he refused to tell his own constituents to turn such barbaric people over to the police.
	Two people were set on fire in their own home. The man is already dead, the girl is seriously ill in hospital, and the house is burned to the ground. Within the past three weeks, the Member for Newry and Armagh, who does not sit in this House either, has refused publicly to encourage anybody to give information to the police about that crime.
	Against that background, it is necessary to have a period between Sinn Fein speaking the words of support for the police and showing that it is prepared to practise support for the police and encourage others to do so. That is why the timetable set down by the Secretary of State in the Bill is unrealistic. If he wants Sinn Fein to make a declaration within a certain period, I am prepared to listen to him, but as he has not been prepared to say when that process starts, he cannot expect the democratic parties to live by a time by which he says the process has to end. We must have a period for that testing process.
	I am still not clear about the position of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). She is right to say that people in Northern Ireland want devolution and want to move away from the cynical way in which we have been governed, whereby things have been done to blackmail, bribe or bully people, even if those were not good policies and utterly contrary to the policies that the Government operate in other parts of the United Kingdom. Of course people want to move away from that so that we can make our own decisions in Northern Ireland through a devolved Assembly, but we cannot afford to ignore the requirement that the parties that will engage in that activity must have a clear-cut position on the police. The hon. Lady did not make it clear whether she believes that it is more important to have devolution or to have all the parties involved in devolution signed up to policing. If it is the latter, she should have no difficulty with the moving of the deadlines and dates.

Lady Hermon: Let me make myself absolutely clear. I am speaking not only as the Member for North Down but as the wife of a former Chief Constable. There are 302 dead police officersmembers of the RUCand I do not want there to be another. It is essential that Sinn Fein realises that it has to sign up to policing, but its difficulty is that every time a deadline is set, it is moved by the Government. If they cannot trust the other parties to keep to their side of the bargain, why did they play their last card? There will be an Irish general election in the springtime. Having listened carefully to every DUP Member, I do not have a clear idea of the time scale that is required to meet the 26 March deadline. According to one Member it is one thing and according to another it is a different thing. Will the hon. Gentleman give me a clear line?

Sammy Wilson: I am still not clear whether the hon. Lady thinks that Sinn Fein can be in government without supporting the police or that the deadline is an important requirement. If she thinks that it is an important requirement, she has reached our position, whereby meeting the conditions is the essential requirement. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) made it clear that we do not want to engage in deadlines involving dateswe want to ensure that there are conditions that are met. How quickly they are met will depend on Sinn Fein. If it holds its Ard Fheis

Lembit �pik: I am now clear about where DUP Members stand: the debate has been helpful in clarifying that. The one thing that I am not clear about is what, explicitly, the conditions are. It is reasonable for us to ask DUP Members to be absolutely clear about the conditions that they want Sinn Fein to meet in order to participate. I must press the hon. Gentleman to indicate for how long they think that Sinn Fein needs to be actively involved in policing before it is sufficient for them to regard Sinn Fein as having met the conditions.

Sammy Wilson: How quickly the conditions are met will depend on the enthusiasm with which Sinn Fein embraces the democratic process. If it moves quickly in dismantling its terrorist structures and in encouraging people in the nationalist community who support the police, if its members give strong support to the police, and if, when incidents happen, it encourages the public to help the police to catch the criminals, the period of building confidence in the fact that there has been a genuine change will be much shorter than if it is done in its usual begrudging way. The time that is required to move forward will depend on how quickly Sinn Fein acts on its words. I cannot have any control over that, the Secretary of State cannot have any control over it, and this House cannot have any control over it, but Sinn Fein has control over it. That is why setting arbitrary deadlines when we do not know how or when Sinn Fein is likely to act creates an impossible situation.
	For far too long, people in Northern Ireland have felt that what has happened, and what has been demanded of them, has been set by other people's agendas. Many people feel at present that the deadline of 26 Marchthe springtimehas been set not because the Secretary of State has made a judgment that that is the time required for Sinn Fein to take the first step and then move towards showing its acceptance of policing, but because it is an important date for the Secretary of State, who has an agenda and a timetable that he has to work towards. There are important elections and important positions to be sought in the Labour party. Some of the cynicism about dates in Northern Ireland has been driven by the belief that the agenda and the timetable have more to do with the political advancement of the Secretary of State or the political legacy of the Prime Minister.

Peter Hain: I have a great deal of time for the hon. Gentleman, but he really should not debase his argument with such clap-trap.

Sammy Wilson: Well, the Secretary of State's reaction tells me more than his denial did. All that I am saying is that the issue is important for our party, because we promised that we would seek to deliver a devolution that was fair and workable. That is what we want, and we do not really care whether that will mean continuing beyond 26 March, or coming back on the matter before 26 March. We want to make sure that we do not have devolution that stumbles and starts, and that falls and gets up again. That did not do the people of Northern Ireland any good in the past, and it will not do them good in future. That is why the amendment is important.

David Simpson: Last week, I spoke to someone who told me that some 18 or 19 deadlines have been set in the Province, and all of them have been missed, so 26 March and the other deadlines will not make an awful lot of difference. The point is not deadlines, but what Sinn Fein-IRA will deliver. The word trust has been bandied about a bit by my colleagues today, and I assure the Secretary of State that the Ulster people from both sectors of the community, and the democratic, elected Members and others, do not trust Sinn Fein-IRA. If we look at the history of successive Governments, we see that Sinn Fein-IRA have taken them for a ride time and again. I believe that this time will be no different.
	In the past few days I have been on a tour of south Armagh, and I visited police stations. I was shown seven or eight illegal fuel operations, but I learned today that some of them may now have been seized and closed. I visited a farmer who, two weeks prior to my visit [Interruption.] No, it was not Slab Murphy's farm; I had an invitation to that farm, but I did not take it. Two weeks prior to my visit to the farm, two men with rifles arrived, in the dark of night, to kill that individual, who is a former member of the security forces. Of course, the Government will tell us that many such incidents are down to the so-called dissidents, but we all know that nothing happens within so-called dissident organisations without the say-so of those in the structures, or the authorities, of the Provisional IRA.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned a terrible tragedy in which two people were burnt to death in south Armagh. The young lady was my constituent, and I know the family well. She had a very large funeral. Three weeks ago, she was ordained as a youth worker in her local church. Republicans broke into her house and gave her such a beating with a claw-hammer that she could hardly stand, and then they set both people alight. I am sure that no Member of this House would get over it if such an incident happened to one of their family. She was 21 years of agea childand thugs, pure scum, came into her home, hit her with a claw-hammer and practically burnt her alive.

Ian Paisley: It should be put on record that the lady came from an outstanding family of devout Protestant churchgoers, who are held in the highest esteem. The vastness of the crowd at the funeral testified to that. There is bitter hatred against that family because of their religion.

David Simpson: I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend says. She came from an upstanding family.
	I must say to the Secretary of State that I have no faith whatever that Sinn Fein-IRA will follow the democratic line on policing and the rule of law. I sit on the local district policing partnership in my council area, and recently the district commander gave us a report. He told us plainly and clearly that, in the past two weeks, nationalist community organisations had withdrawn from contact with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They had started to engage with the community police, but have now withdrawn their support from the PSNI. There have been shootings at police stations and bombs in Londonderry and in my own constituency. That is all put down to the dissidents, but as the Secretary of State well knows, nothing happens without the authority of the Provisional IRA. No trust is felt by the Unionist community, and if the deadline needs to be changed, it should be changed, so that we can deliver proper democracy and devolution in Northern Ireland.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) mentioned his cousin, and all of us in the Democratic Unionist party can relate to such situations involving family members. I have said it before in the House, and I do not intend to repeat the detail, but I lost four members of my family. I must tell the Secretary of State that it is difficult to go forward on devolution knowing that an individual mentioned in the House today was responsible for giving the orders to assassinate them; that is a fact of life.
	We must resolve the policing issue. We cannot fudge it or run away from it, and any party that does not sign up to policing and the rule of law has no place in the government of Northern Ireland. We need a time frame in which it can be proved that the people concerned are coming up to the mark. Of course, there are other issues, too, such as sanctions, which have been mentioned today. We have talked about criminality and the structures of the Provisional IRA, too. If Sinn Fein-IRA are to become so-called democrats, and if they are to come to Stormont as devolutionists, why would they want to hold on to terrorist structures? All of us will have our opinion on that, but I assure the Secretary of State that the people of Northern Ireland will accept no less than the changes we have mentioned, and nor will our party.

William McCrea: I wish to say a few words on an issue that appears to be precious to the Secretary of State and the Government.
	Sinn Fein Members do not come to the House, but no doubt they will listen carefully to our debate, and some people will be quick to tell them about it. However, our debate provides an opportunity for everyone, including the Government, to take a reality check. We need a good dose of reality. When David Trimble led the Ulster Unionists the people of Ulster were served fudge every day until it came out of their ears and they were sick to the teeth of it. Issues were not nailed down, so the people of Northern Ireland are not willing to take anything on trust, whether from the Government or from Sinn Fein. By their deeds and actions shall ye know them.
	The Secretary of State cannot tell us when a declaration has to be made about the security forces, and he cannot tell us when he expects the process to startbut we can do so. In the words of the hymn:
	The sands of time are sinking.
	They are sinking fast. I understand where the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) was coming from, but if a meeting was held and that declaration was made for the election on 7 March, would that be suitable? Without such a declaration, the democrats would have to stand on people's doorsteps and say, Trust Sinn Fein. A credible period is required, and if anyone in the House thinks that a declaration made at the end of February or March will wash with democrats, they are living up a gum tree. They had better come down to realitythat is the reality check that I was talking about.
	The issues are extremely clear, but the people of Northern Ireland must be convinced. The Unionist population has been slaughtered by IRA scum, so they will not take anything on trust. They will not accept verbiageit is usually garbagefrom the sources of republicanism, and they look carefully at action. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) asked what the DUP would do. We have set out a list of things and we have tried to be open and honest. The Secretary of State knows that confidence-building measures must be nailed down. We have been honest and open with the Government; we are not playing games with anyone. The DUP is playing a straight bat and unless those measures are nailed down, 26 March is outside the field.

Peter Hain: Anyone from Parliament, Northern Ireland or the rest of the UK watching our debate will be filled with bubbling enthusiasm for the prospect that the St. Andrews agreement will be implemented. The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked where the date of 24 November for nominations had come from. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, it appears in paragraph 10 of the St. Andrews agreement, to which all the parties signed up and which is the reason for proceeding with the legislation. I was asked where the date of 26 March came from. It, too, appeared in paragraph 10 and elsewhere in the St. Andrews agreement.
	This has been a sobering debate for the whole process. The Government and I introduced the legislation in good faith, after all the parties, including the DUP and Sinn Fein, signed up to the St. Andrews agreement. I am not suggesting that they signed up to every comma and full stop, but they signed up to the broad thrust or architecture. Those dates were included in the agreement and they were endorsed by all the parties. If there is any attempt to back off from those dates or from the agreement, the rationalethis is importantbehind the St. Andrews agreement falls. We could spend a great deal of timeindeed, we spent much of the last month with Sinn Fein and the DUP, who were winding each other upheading for failure. I shall explain that in detail later.
	The hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and for Foyle asked whether the deadline is real. Yes, it is emphatically real, not just because it appears in the legislation, where clear dates are set for restoration and for an election, but for another reason. There is no prospect at all of me, as Secretary of State, or the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), or any of the ministerial team going to the business managers of the House and saying that we would like another emergency Northern Ireland Bill in the next few weeks or months because someone feels that they cannot quite deliver on the St. Andrews agreement that they signed up to. There is no chance at all of our doing that. Nor would there be a chance of any of the Northern Ireland parties being believed by Parliament if, after signing up to St. Andrews, we then came back with a fresh piece of legislationa different position.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) insisted that nobody could force or dragoon the DUP into restoration, and I agree with him. I cannot force or dragoon the DUP into restoration, and I would never try to do so; nor would anyone who was sensible or serious about this matter. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman suggested that the devolution of policing and justice would probably not occur in his political lifetime. That point has also been made by other members of the DUP. It is absolutely right for members of any party to demand of Sinn Fein a credible and sustainable attitude to policing. However, it does not help at all for people to suggest that such things might never happen in their political lifetime, if ever, and I will explain why. This is about building mutual confidence and trust, and they will not be built by statements such as thoseI must be absolutely blunt about that.
	The amendments are designed to achieve the one aim of diluting the deadline for the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If we agreed to that, we would be back on the same old merry-go-round: maybe sometime, maybe never, maybe we will get to March, or maybe it will be October next year, then when we get to October it may be the following April, then we will get to the following April and it will be the following October. This would go on and on and on. The problem with that would be that nobody would believe it any more. Judging by the contributions that have been made tonight, that is the problem that the DUP finds itself in. That is the predicament that we should be in if we agreed to the amendments.
	The deadline of 26 March 2007 is absolutely critical. It was a key feature of the St. Andrews agreement, as enshrined in the Bill. We would not have reached the St. Andrews agreement without that deadline being made absolutely clear. Some hon. Members have already pointed to previous deadlines and wondered, perhaps with some degree of cynicism, why this one would be any different. I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that the 26 March will see the end of current attempts to achieve restoration. Whether that means devolution or dissolution after that date is the choice of the Northern Ireland parties and the Northern Ireland people.
	I have been asked a lot of questions along the lines of, If this happens, what about that? and If an ard fheis is not called by this or that week, what will happen? I have been asked such questions by the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). In my position as Secretary of State, it is neither sensible nor in the interests of the process to answer what if questions. However, it is right to expect me to sayas I have already saidthat it is important that Sinn Fein calls an ard fheis sooner rather than later. It has committed itself to doing that. It has already called an ard chomhairle, and it is committed to calling another. What matters now is that all the parties seek to build confidence and trust in each other, and that does not involve making the kind of statements about devolution perhaps not happening in someone's political lifetime, if ever. That does not build mutual trust or confidence at all.

Lembit �pik: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I must finish these points before I take any interventions.
	So, 26 March will represent the end of the current process one way or the other. Quite simply, there is nothing more that the Government can do. There are no issues left to be resolved that cannot be resolved in the next four months or so. If we cannot achieve devolution on 26 March after the efforts of so many people on all sides leading up to St. Andrews, at St. Andrews and subsequently, it would simply make no sense to move on. We would need to find other ways of advancing the interests of Northern Ireland, because all the remaining avenues to achieving restoration will have been exhausted by then.

Lembit �pik: I stress that I do not condemn the Government's approach to the deadlines. I can see exactly why this has happened. The important point that has emerged from tonight's debate is one that any analyst could have seen coming. I refer to the clash between a deadline-led and a condition-led process.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that all we have been given tonight is an explicit outline of the challenge, which is to come to terms with the conditions required by the DUP for progress at the same time as coming to terms with the deadlines that the Government understandably want to fulfil? If that is the case, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real challenge between now and the beginning of March is to find a way of squaring the circle?

Peter Hain: Of course, and we will continue to seek to do so.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and, indeed, other DUP Members, about there being no devolution of justice and policing in a political lifetime. Is not the problem the fact that DUP Members feel they can make such remarks with impunity because they already carry in their pockets a triple lock, courtesy of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006? Does the Secretary of State agree that given DUP Members' comments about deadlines tonight, he was right to listen to representations from the likes of us about the need for a sunset clause to ensure that the changes the Bill will make in the operation of the institutions will fall if people let the deadline fall?

Michael Lord: Order. I shall leave the Secretary of State to decide for himself which of those two interventions to respond to.

Peter Hain: I did respond briefly to the intervention by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik)very briefly, because, with all due respect, I did not think I needed to add any more. However, I agree emphatically with my hon. Friend the Member for Foylethe hon. Member for Foylewell, both actually. I think that he was right to press his point. If this process ends, the institutional changes for which the DUP, in particular, has pressed will collapse as well. They will disappear.
	There are tough choices for everyone. It is not about bullying or blackmailing; it is about the time when minds must be made up. I am not directly accountable, I am not elected, but I do not believe from what they have told me day in, day out that the people of Northern Ireland will allow the show to go on for ever. Notwithstanding some of the points that have been made tonight, particularly by DUP Members, I prefer the wise comments that were made on the day when the Royal Irish Regiment was commemorated and celebrated in Belfast in the presence of the Queen.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I want to finish this point.
	On that day, I was sharing lunch with a former sergeant from the Ulster Defence Regiment. He described in graphic detail how he had survived two murder attempts by the IRA. He had managed to get away, and he described his experiences in breathtaking detail. But he also said to me, Do not allow this process to go on for ever. I may not like the idea of Unionists sharing power with Sinn Fein, but I think it is time to do it, because they have a mandate. It is time to move forward on the basis that has been decided. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed, or that, if they are, they will be defeated.
	Let me leave the Committee with this thought. There is a real danger that the voters of Northern Ireland will be turned off politics completely, because there is no longer any hope left in politics in Northern Ireland. The opportunity to restore hope lies in the St Andrews agreement, which, I repeat, was signed up to by all the Northern Ireland parties represented here tonight, as well as others. That is the mandate that we were given on which to proceed, that is the prospect for success, and that is the track we are on. If anyone wants to climb off that track, so be it. It will be devolution or dissolution. There will be no shifting at all on any of these dates.

Nigel Dodds: I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State had to say and we are still waiting for him to give an indication of when the Sinn Fein conference should happen. He says that he will not answer what if questions, but his speech was riddled with remarks to the effect that if the DUP do not do this or that by certain dates, this is what will happen. He is clear about what will happen in certain circumstances, but he refuses to make any demands of Sinn Fein and its timetable for delivery on policing, except vague statements that it should happen sooner rather than later. He says nothing about what will happen if it does not and he has refused to answer questions from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others about what happens if it is not held before the election. We see evasiveness, shiftiness and a refusal to answer direct questions, while all the time seeking to blame others. The reality is that this party is signed up to devolution on the right terms.
	The Secretary of State mentioned where dates came from. At the St. Andrews event and the agreement between the two Governments, the DUP did not sign up to anything other than the delivery by Sinn Fein-IRA of their commitments on policing. Since then, we have seen a reneging by Sinn Fein on those commitments.
	The Secretary of State tells us tonight that people will be disappointed by the lack of bubbling enthusiasm for the Bill. People in Northern Ireland are disappointed, but it is because the things that we were told would happen in the wake of St. Andrews have not happened. Sinn Fein has retreated on policing. The people of Northern Ireland will rightly expect us to stick to our manifesto commitments that we would not jump first and repeat the mistakes of the Ulster Unionist party, which led to its electoral annihilation. The people of Northern Ireland expect us to keep our word on that issue, and keep our word we will.
	Our amendment would provide a safeguard to ensure that the Secretary of State does not have to come back to the House at some future point with new emergency legislation. He sits there and pretends that once he decides that the process cannot be delivered because Sinn Fein has not signed up to the policing, everything will somehow disappear and politics in Northern Ireland will shut down. That is not credible and it will not happen.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Secretary of State to read the results of the opinion poll published a week ago by the BBC in its Hearts and Minds programme? It asked a specific question about what people wanted to happen if the deadlines were not met. A large majority of respondents said that politicians should be given more time.

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that poll, because the Secretary of State is always keen to refer to the opinions of the people of Northern Ireland. He should also take on board the opinions of leading churchmen recently who, when asked the same question, said that more time should be given. Of course, every sensible person believes that if we have not reached a point at which everybody has made a commitment to full support for the police, the courts and the rule of law and a complete end to criminality and paramilitarism, we should wait until everybody has made that commitment and delivered on those issues.
	The Secretary of State referred to specific comments that I made about devolution of policing and justice. I stand by those comments, just as my hon. Friends stand by their comments. The Secretary of State should not pretend that those comments form a new position. I refer him to  Hansard for 17 May, column 1032, where my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that he could not envisage devolution of policing and justice happening in his lifetime. Later in that debate, at column 1037, I made similar remarks, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea). So the Secretary of State should not pretend that this is somehow a deeply unhelpful new demand. It is on the record. That is our position and that is where we stand. Sinn Fein will have to prove to people in Northern Ireland that it is committed to policing, justice, courts and the rule of law without being given control over the police service. That can be granted only when the community has confidence, and I cannot see that happening for a political lifetime.
	 Question proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 319.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5
	  
	The Executive Committee and the Ministerial Code

Mark Durkan: I beg to move amendment No. 33, page 4, leave out lines 8 to 10.

Michael Lord: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 34, page 5, leave out lines 12 to 15.
	No. 35, in clause 7, page 6, line 24, at end insert
	'(ce) to comply with the Ministerial Code referred to in section 28A(2);'.

Mark Durkan: In an earlier debate this evening, the Democratic Unionist party again tried to create the misleading impression that devolution as it operated in recent years in Northern Ireland was a free for all, just a governmental tower of Babel, with nobody able to make sense of it or understand it or clear anything with anyone else. However, the reality is that Ministers had to get clearance from the Executive if they were to bring forward legislative proposals. They had to get their legislation approved, and often amended, in the Assembly. They had to work in the context of the programme for Government, again agreed by the Executive and approved by the Assembly.

Iris Robinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain to me why Bairbre de Brun was able to take the decision on maternity services, why Martin McGuinness was able to scrap the 11-plus, and why there was no accountability between north-south meetings with Ministers representing each of those two states.

Mark Durkan: In the course of my remarks I will nail each and every one of those misrepresentations of what actually happened.
	The fact is that for key decisions, the ministerial code, and particularly the ministerial code as amended, including in the aftermath of the decision on Belfast maternity services, already made it very clear when Ministers had to bring things to the Executive. The DUP pretends that nobody had to bring anything to the Executivethat there were no requirements for accountability, transparency or notifying people of anything. We had quite a sizeable ministerial code, which covered all those issues.
	Ministers also had to get the approval of the Executive for key proposals, and even DUP Ministers did so; even they had to submit memorandums to the very Executive that they had promised to destroy. Yes, it was a bit of a phony correspondence between the Executive and the DUP, but the fact is that DUP Ministers had to abide by the ministerial code and send a number of their key proposals in to the Executive.
	Yes, we have proposed on previous occasions, and will propose again, that far more transparency should be built into prior notification of possible ministerial decisions, to the departmental Committees as well as to the Executive, but all our proposals for added transparency and up-front declarations by Ministers and Departments were actually rejected by the DUP when we made them in the review of the Good Friday agreement and at the subsequent talks at Leeds castle. The DUP said that our proposals for far more accountability, transparency and scrutiny in the Assembly were actually providing for too much transparency and too much accountability. The truth is that the DUP is not interested in accountability in the true and proper sense of that term, or transparency for the public good; the DUP is into private vetoes, and DUP contributions to the debates this evening prove that members of the DUP are not reformed vetoholics. They are still vetoholics, committed to taking every veto they can get when they can get it, and once they start on the vetoes they just cannot stop themselves. That is the reality.
	That is why I pointed out earlier the mistake that was made in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, which gave the DUP the triple lock on the devolution of justice and policing. The DUP has been brandishing it ever since. We now get these cries of Shock! and Horror! and Disgrace! from Sinn Feinthe very people who applauded as that veto was handed to the DUP in legislation, when people were doing handstands and saying that it was wonderful legislation that would seal the devolution of justice.
	Our amendments purport to address what we see as a number of problems with new vetoes that are gratuitously given, especially to the DUP, in the Bill. Decision making will be snarled up and complicated. That is something that the provisions in the Bill invite via politics, and they will guarantee bad government.
	We are reinforced in our opposition to the provisions in clause 5, and some of the provisions in clause 6 in the light of the Minister of State's answers to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He gave carefully choreographed answersit was a side deal unveiled in publicthat show that this is really about giving the DUP the sort of drive-by vetoes that the SDLP has complained about ever since they were provided for in the so-called comprehensive agreement of December 2004.
	Members of the DUP might argue that they want to have more controls and more constraints on Ministersfurther obligations for Ministers. But under legislation already passed by Parliament, if a Minister breaches the ministerial code a complaint can be brought to the Independent Monitoring Commission, and if the IMC upholds that complaint, the Secretary of State can impose sanctions against the Minister, regardless even of the will of Assembly. That, as well as a ministerial code that the DUP has been in denial about, undermines and refutes the case for the sort of changes in this Bill that Ministers have granted to the DUP.
	The Bill goes radically further than what existed before, because it imposes a legal duty on Ministers to comply with the ministerial codea code that cannot always be as tightly drafted as one might want, and which, for very good reasons, might in part have to be drafted more loosely. Clause 5 goes on to provide that a Minister has no authority to take any decision against the ministerial code. As the Minister said in reply to questions asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, that will mean that any decision taken that might not be in compliance with the ministerial code could be subject to full legal challenge.
	When I look at the existing ministerial code, I can see all sorts of grounds on which Ministers might take cases against other Ministers for supposedly not complying with it, and possibilities that subsequently, one or two years down the road as things are being implemented, consequential issues will be raised and people will then discover that those issues all stem from a ministerial decision taken a couple of years ago that was not in compliance with the ministerial code. A vested interestperhaps a wealthy business person or some other third-party interestmight then decide, We can gridlock the whole thing; we can take this into the Northern Ireland courts. They will not have to find a ruse involving people breaking a European Union regulation and take that to Brussels. They will have far more things on which to take Ministers and Departments to court than merely issues such as not complying with consultation requirementsthe very issue that has seen Ministers from a number of Departments in courts in recent times. We could have Government gridlocked.
	Taking such decisions into courts can cause hardship for third parties who are relying on decisions being implemented and followed through, and that can of course be exploited by cynical third parties who want to stand in the way of people benefiting from certain Government decisions; those third parties might want to complicate issues regarding contracts that have been awarded, or to stop contracts in their tracks, which might prevent roads or hospitals from being built. That is what can come from elevating into law the requirement for Ministers to comply with the ministerial code, and from saying that anything that people can allege is shy of the ministerial code to any degree can automatically be a matter for the courts.
	Under the Bill's provisions, it will be impossible for Ministers to move quickly to deal with emergencies such as an influenza epidemicavian flu might hit usor foot and mouth disease. Foot and mouth hit us during the last period of devolution, and there were issues and sensitivities concerning the fact that the then Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development took the straightforward decision to close the ports. That helped to save Northern Ireland from the scourge of foot and mouth, but under the proposals being discussed, that Minister would not be able to do that. Under these proposals, that Minister would have to wait at least a week until there was an Executive meeting, and even then would not be able to take that decision if other Executive Ministers had any issues with it. So under these provisions we could end up not with bad decisions but with no decisions, which would be worse.
	The Government will say that the provisions are necessary in order to implement St. Andrews, which states that a duty to comply with the code will be placed on Ministers. But we have heard tonight from the leader of the DUP, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), that St. Andrews is just a white document between two Governments, which has no meaning or standing. He does not himself feel obligated by anything else in St. Andrews. If that is his attitude, why should the Government feel obligated to make the provisions in St. Andrews that are under discussion, just because they are for the DUP? When the DUP does not want to abide by St. Andrews, that is okay by the Government. When the DUP wants everybody else to abide by St. Andrews and hold us ruthlessly to it, that is okay by the Government too, because the Government are just here to do the DUP's willthat is just the way that this process is run at this stage.
	It is not necessary to meet any legitimate concerns that people have about making sure that the ministerial code has good standing, because we have provided other amendments to this Bill that would do that. They would impose a duty in respect of the ministerial code through the pledge of office. If the DUP finds it significant and pertinent to have other commitments made through the pledge of office, why not also make commitments to the ministerial code and its standing through the pledge of office? Of course, the advantage of that is that a duty under the pledge of office can be enforcedshould such a situation ever ariseby the International Monitoring Commission, not by the courts.

Stephen Pound: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sure that he regrets as much as I do that no members of the DUP are in the Chamber to hear him. Regarding his comment about the former Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Brid Rodgers, is he seriously suggesting that ifGod forbidwe had a similar foot and mouth occurrence, the person holding that office would be unable to take the emergency steps that she took? If so, that is a crucial point.

Mark Durkan: I want to make it clear to my hon. Friend that that is exactly what I am saying. The changes that the Bill will make to how such institutions operate, as served up to the DUP, will mean that anybody in Brid Rodgers' position will be unable to act as she did. Potentially, no action could be taken. I was a member of the Executive at that time, and I know that not everybody agreed with the action that Brid Rodgers took. People had their own reasons to be unhappy about it. They did not like the idea of Northern Ireland ports being shut, but that is what she did, and it was effective Executive action. Those who had sensitivities about such an action being takenand those who did notshould recognise that under these arrangements, a Minister will be obliged not to take such action. A Minister is now obliged to say, Because a question might arise under the ministerial code, I can't take that action. The most I can do is to find out when the next Executive meeting might be, at which I can raise the issue.

Mark Tami: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), is it not incredible that no members of the DUP are present for the debate on an issue as important as this?

Mark Durkan: It is incredible on one level, but not on another. Members of the DUP feel that the Government are here to do their job for them. Indeed, my hon. Friend has made my pointmembers of the DUP can remain safe in the knowledge that the Government are making changes on their behalf, and defending and justifying those changes; they do not have to be here to justify them themselves.
	That is what this process has boiled down to. It is a competition between Sinn Fein and the DUP to see who can take away the mostto see who can force the Government to stand up and justify their position, without their having to do it. If Sinn Fein can get the Government to present legislation here for them, without their having to be here, DUP members are probably asking, in the name of equality, why they should have to be here to seek their changes, if the Government can do it for them instead. That is exactly the problem that we face, and it shows the contempt with which this process and this House are being treated. The DUP Members know that they have already got what they want from the Government, and that is good enough for them, but it does not prevent them from trying to push back deadlines and throw other spanners in the works.
	In fairness, one member of the DUP was here and did ask me questions, which I said I would address. Both she and the hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned the decisions on maternity services in Belfast, including that taken by Bairbre de Brun, who happened to be a Sinn Fein Minister. The decision that Bairbre de Brun took was in keeping with the decision that the direct rule Minister preceding her was planning to take. It was based on the prevailing, overwhelming and clear medical advice that the best place to site maternity services in Belfast was the Royal Victoria hospital, because it had paediatric services. Contrary to the insinuation by the hon. Member for Belfast, East that Bairbre de Brun took the decision simply to favour her own constituency, I would argue that many of the objections to her decision were based precisely on the fact that the hospital was in west Belfast. I do not think that she took the decision because the hospital is in west Belfast; indeed, a lot of people disagreed with it because it is in west Belfast.
	However, under this legislation, we could end up with no decision on such an issue. Everybody agreed that for the sake of maternity services in Belfast, a decision had to be taken in favour of one site. We could no longer maintain maternity services at both the Belfast City hospital and the Royal Victoria hospital. Under the Bill before us, a Minister of health might want to take such a decision again. A health Minister would have to go to the Executive and if three other Ministers disagreedfor whatever reasons, including their own partisan or constituency reasonswe would end up with no decision being taken.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with hindsightperhaps five years onthe decision taken on the maternity hospital was the right one?

Mark Durkan: Yes, it was absolutely right, which is why I and most of my colleagues voted in support of the health Minister's decision and against the censure attack when other parties in the Assembly sought to press for a vote. The final decision was not actually taken by Bairbre de Brun. Current direct rule Ministers are becoming increasingly familiar with judicial reviews, under one of which Bairbre de Brun and the Department were taken to court over the procedure. The court found that the procedure was deficient and the consideration process and decision had to be taken again. Finally, a direct rule Minister took the same decision and followed the same prevailing medical advice.
	Another example is the supposed decision taken by the then Minister of Education, Martin McGuinness, on the 11-plus. Let us be clear. If the suspension had not happened, we would not have had the rushed announcementinspired by public relations and other purposes. We should remember that there is a difference between an announcement and a decision: announcing that the 11-plus is to go after 2008 is one thing; taking a decision on what replaces it is quite another. That is the real issue at stakebut we never had such a decision. Only a few weeks previously, Martin McGuinness, as Minister, told the Assembly that a further consultation exercise would take place and that no decision would be taken without the matter first being referred to the Executive and coming before the Assembly. Only then, as things destabilised into suspension, did Martin McGuinness face the free context of no Assembly sitting and make his announcement in the hope that it would bind subsequent direct rule Ministers. One can understand the motives and considerations involved there.
	I would reject what the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) implied in respect of those two decisions. I would also point out that she was wrong in trying to say that there was absolutely no accountability or scrutiny in terms of north-south. Ministers could not go to a north-south ministerial council meeting without all of the papers for the meeting being shared not just with the accompanying Minister, but with the whole Executive. They had to inform and come before the departmental committee of the Assembly to speak to the issues and they had to make a full statement after the meeting to the Assembly, and be open to a full hour of questions.
	After a while, unpredictably in these matters, the questions did not last anything like an hour because people were so content, and the business was straightforward. There was no big mystery to it. If anything, the question was why more north-south business was not happening, as it could be made more productive and more relevant by giving the bodies more rather than less to do.
	I fear that the Government, by giving the DUP the sort of drive-by vetoes that it sought, are granting a concession too many. As I mentioned to the Secretary of State earlier, that is why we are glad that there is a sunset clause that would dissolve the changes if the DUP does not comply with the deadline.

Lembit �pik: Would the hon. Gentleman nevertheless accept that his proposed change could work in the other direction, too, in that a DUP Minister could act unilaterally and not be brought to book by the Executive? The hon. Gentleman is focusing on what has happened, but we need to think less about the individual parties and more about the general principle, which could work in either direction.

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, but he appears to labour under the misapprehension that there is not already a fairly well developed ministerial code that clearly sets out when Ministers need to bring matters before the Executiveand if they are not sure whether they need to do that, when prior notification needs to be given to the Executive secretariat.
	We had also developed a sub-structurea ministerial representatives committee, at which both departmental representatives and Ministers' special advisers would meet to discuss what was on their agenda and on the radar screens of various Departments as a way of alerting other Departments, Ministers and parties to the sort of issues that we were developing. Much of the provision is therefore unnecessary. There was intelligent sharing of information and proper anticipation that could help in all the matters that we are considering.
	Other amendments and improvements can be made to the ministerial code, the operation of the Executive and providing more scrutiny in the Assembly. We made proposals for all that, but the idea of rogue Ministers being able to go off, dream up their own stuff and do their own thing is palpable nonsense. Ministers simply could not do that, not just because they had to refer to the Executive but because some things have to stem from budgets. Ministers had to have their budgets approved not only by the Department of Finance and Personnel but the Assembly and the Executive.
	On ministerial accountability for budgets, the SDLP proposed that, as well as the Finance Minister providing for the overall budget, all departmental Ministers should present their spending plans in their own dedicated sitting in the Assembly. They could thus justify their spending plans and be asked questions about their budgets. Again, that proved to be too much scrutiny and accountability for some people. For us, it would have been an aid to good government and transparency, and it could have worked. It proves that the DUP's interest in the matter is not true transparency, accountability or better government but gotcha politics.
	The danger is that if we go through with the provision as it stands, we will end up with gotcha and gotcha-back politics. For different reasons, the same applies to our difficulties with clause 6the next provision to be considered.

Alan Reid: Clause 5 provides for preventing individual Ministers from acting unilaterally on significant or controversial matters that are clearly outside the scope of the agreed programme. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would remove the requirement for a Minister or junior Minister to act in accordance with the provisions of the ministerial code. Amendment No. 35 would add a new paragraph to the pledge of office, providing for Ministers to comply with the ministerial code.
	I prefer the clause, because it is stronger. It provides for a statutory duty, rather than simply a pledge, to comply with the code. I am therefore not minded to support the amendments. However, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made important points. He said that we could end up with legal action later that could perhaps overrule a Minister's decision. I am worried that the clause could result in the Executive being bogged down in legal action. I hope that the Minister will deal with that in his response. If he wants to gain our support, I ask him to convince us that the problems that the hon. Member for Foyle mentioned will not arise.

David Hanson: Rather like James Bond's martini, I am shaken but not stirred by the amendment. I am shaken because my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) suggests that I am doing the DUP's workI assure him that we are not. I am not stirred in that, although he makes an eloquent case, I cannot support it.
	Clause 5 is there for a purposeto ensure that we have a statutory ministerial code that places a duty on Ministers and junior Ministers to act in accordance with it, as set out in the St. Andrews agreement, which parties in the House supported on 13 October. The amendment would effectively remove the requirement for a statutory code and the duty on all Ministers to adhere to it.
	Furthermore, amendment No. 34 would mean that the draft ministerial code prepared by either the transitional Assembly or the Secretary of State under schedule 1(4) would not be the ministerial code on restoration on 26 March 2007. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that I believe that a ministerial code is an important constituent part of the Bill.
	The Secretary of State has a duty under schedule 1(4) to prepare a draft ministerial code to ensure that the Assembly has such a code in place. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the Assembly has the power to draft a ministerial code while it is the transitional Assembly. Only if the Assembly were unable to do so would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State prepare a draft code as an important fall-back position to prevent the newly restored Assembly from being faced with immediate paralysis.
	It is important that we have a ministerial code. Under paragraph 4 of schedule 1, the Assembly can draft a ministerial code during its transitional period. That could deal with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle in the sense that, if there is agreement on the contents of the ministerial code, there is the potential for it to be drafted by the Assembly during the transitional period.

Mark Durkan: I assure the Minister that we have no problem with placing the ministerial code on a statutory footing. We do not believe that all the actions of Ministers should end up being justiciable because of the way in which the provision is made in the Bill. There are better ways to provide for such things.

David Hanson: I accept and hear what my hon. Friend says, but these amendments would remove the duty on a ministerial code from the Bill. There would not be a ministerial code under the Bill if these amendments were accepted by the Governmentnor could the Assembly draw up its own ministerial codeand my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could not place a ministerial code before the transitional Assembly if it did not introduce such a code. These are serious amendments, the effects of which would damage the process begun at St. Andrews on 13 October.
	My hon. Friend made the point that there might be occasions when the Assembly had to deal with emergencies, which could be referred to the Executive, thus delaying implementation. Nothing whatsoever in the legislation stops, for example, the transitional Assembly making proposals in the code to ensure that emergency circumstances were dealt with; nor is there anything in the ministerial code that stops the Executive calling an emergency meeting.
	In the circumstances that my hon. Friend described earlierfor example, a foot and mouth outbreakif a Minister decided to close the ports in Northern Ireland to prevent access and even if such a decision had to be referred to the Executive under the ministerial code as ultimately drafted, there would be nothing wrong with the Minister requesting an urgent meeting with the Executive that day, as would happen now in the Cabinet to determine such issues. My hon. Friend's conjecture is not likely to happen in the event of serious emergencies. Such matters would be dealt with by the Minister taking a decision on non-controversial issues. Controversial or urgent matters could be dealt with by an urgent Executive meeting.

Mark Durkan: That answer would be very helpful if it had any relationship to the facts. Very clear requirements are laid down on the notice that must be given for Executive meetings and so on, so the Minister's assurance does not apply.

David Hanson: What I am sayingI hope that my hon. Friend listens and refers to it in  Hansard tomorrowis that if the Assembly compiles a code of practice for Ministers during its transitional period, it can build into that code the matters that are before it. I would certainly hope that that would be the case. On urgent matters, there is the power to call emergency Executive meetings. That is an important process to undertake.

Stephen Pound: I am not sure what the parliamentary protocol is for saying that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) asked precisely the question that I was about to ask. He was much more alert than I was, so I shall resume my seat.

David Hanson: I hope that my hon. Friend gives me credit for giving way to him, even though the answer remains the same for both questions.
	I understand the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, but I simply say that we need a ministerial code, and we need to give the transitional Assembly the opportunity to compile that ministerial code. If it does not succeed in that task, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will impose a ministerial code. There must be a ministerial code for the effective working of the St. Andrews agreement.

Alan Reid: Will the Minister respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and me that Ministers could be unduly restricted, that legal action could follow if they took a decision outwith the ministerial code and that decisions could be overturned by the courts, causing chaos?

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We do not want gridlock in the Assembly; we want effective decision making. Any ministerial decision now, as the Government can testify, can be subject to judicial review and scrutiny by the court. I faced that as Minister with responsibility for finance and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns), has succeeded in winning a case of possible judicial review this very day. It can happen in all areas. The simple fact is that, as we have seen in the House today, we need a ministerial code to regulate relationships between the different parties. I commend the Bill to the House, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle to withdraw his amendment.

Mark Durkan: I want to explain to the Minister that our amendments are not about removing a ministerial code. We helped to put the existing ministerial code in place. We sought further improvements to it, and we wanted it to be subject to a full vote by the Assembly. The only party in the previous Assembly that had trouble with the ministerial code was the DUPthe very party that now says that it is the champion of the ministerial code. I am reminded of the earlier observation from an American context that irony in politics is just hypocrisy with panache.

Mark Tami: Can my hon. Friend explain why DUP Members have not bothered to turn up for this part of the debate?

Mark Durkan: The DUP obviously believes that it is home in a boat with the vetoes that it has been seeking. At least that makes a change. For years, DUP Members have complained about being sold down the river. Now they feel that they are home in a boat and can leave the Government to do their bidding, even if they then thumb their nose at the Government in relation to other provisions.

Stephen Pound: They are probably watching the Celtic game.

Mark Durkan: Perhaps they are supporting Celtic in the final moments of the game against Manchester United. Unfortunately, a real dilemma has been created for those of us who, on any other occasion, definitely want Manchester United to win.

Peter Hain: They lost.

Mark Durkan: So I understand, and I hope that it is some consolation to the DUP that that result has perturbed the rest of us in another way.
	The Minister implied that our amendments were an attempt to remove a ministerial code. The fact is, however, that the ministerial code is already in place, and we want to reinforce and affirm it. We want to give it full status within the pledge of office. As it stands, the pledge of office refers to a ministerial code of conduct in terms of some of the key Nolan principles and so on, but it does not refer to the ministerial code itself. Let us remember that previous legislation addresses the issue of the ministerial code. The Minister forgets that the legislation that set up the IMC, for instance, specifically provided for breaches of the ministerial code to be referred to the IMC. That would be a matter for the IMC, however, not the courts, and we would not run the danger of all sorts of decisions being turned over: not just recently made decisions, but all sorts of consequential decisions that might be turned over after a number of years because somebody decided to appeal the basis on which the decision was first made.
	People take cases to Brussels to hold things up. We see vested interests doing that. If someone like Michael O'Leary is threatening to take the British Government to court over something as fundamental as their action on airport security, might not it just be possible that some vested interests, including some business interests, might see fit to tie up a regional government in court, create all sorts of political implications, seek affidavits from different Ministers and have Ministers give evidence against each other, never mind the definite risk under the Bill of Ministers suing each other?
	We are withdrawing our amendment not because we find any merit in the Bill in this regardwe think that there are dangers in it, and they were amplified by the Minister in his earlier reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), which confirmed that all sorts of matters could come to court. It is not lost on us that the DUP's clear attitude is that any north-south issue is a cross-cutting matter, and therefore that even a bit of everyday cross-border co-operation in a border area could be subject to challenge and review, as it would have to be referred to the Executive.
	We will withdraw our amendment, because we want to ensure that we expedite the passage of the Bill, to try to hold to the deadline later in the week. However, just because we want to meet that deadline does not mean that we will accept any responsibility for the deadlock that will inevitably result from the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman of Ways and Means  put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Clauses 5 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Schedules 1 to 9 agreed to.
	 Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, in respect of the Investment Exchanges and Clearing Houses Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time. [Mr. Watts.]

PUBLIC PARKS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Watts.]

Kevan Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is important to the people of Stanley in my constituency. For the past few months, with many of my constituents, I have been fighting a battle to save View Lane park in Stanley. The park was originally gifted to the people of Stanley by Lord Joicey, and has existed as a public park for their benefit ever since. Not only is it an important and welcome recreational space, but it is of major historical significance and it has a wealth of flora and fauna, making it a wildlife haven in an urban area. In recent years, Derwentside district council, which owns the park, has been criticised by local residents for failing to maintain it to a high standard. Despite that, the park remains a well used community facility.
	Recently, a property development company, Mistal Homes Ltd, made an unsolicited approach to the district council offering to purchase half of the total area of the park to build what it calls a residential centre for adults with autism on the site. I have serious concerns about the proposed development and about Derwentside district council's behaviour in dealing with it.
	There is abundant local opposition to the sale and development of the park. I have been contacted by hundreds of local residents who do not wish to lose a significant part of an historic and well loved park. I pay tribute to Dr. David Walton and the members of the View Lane park action group, who have been campaigning to secure a future for the park. I also wish to put on record my appreciation of the tremendous efforts made by local councillors Derek Little, Kevin Howe, Carl Marshall and David Broadly. County councillors Clare Vasey and Edna Hunter have also assisted residents in their fight. A petition of more than 100 residents was submitted, along with several letters objecting to the development, and at the two consultation events held by the council, no one spoke in favour of the proposed development.
	The sale of the land will result in a capital sum of 600,000 for Derwentside district council, which has stated that it intends to spend some of the moneyI emphasise, some of iton improving the rest of the park. The council claims that that is the only way to improve the rest of the park; I shall return to that point later in my speech. It is also important to note the claim that Mistal Homes approached the district council, as opposed to the council offering the land for sale.
	When councillors took the decision, both in principle and in subsequent meetings, to proceed with the sale of the land, there was no discussion and no information was given to councillors regarding Mistal Homes' financial position or the company's track record. I find that odd, especially as I have been advised that the firm in question has no track record and has been registered with Companies House only since January. What is clear is that it is a property development company, with no background in care provision. The company will simply build the facility, then sell it on to the highest bidder.
	I am also concerned that one of Mistal Homes' directors, Mr. Hampshire, has declared to Companies House that he has no other directorships apart from that of Mistal Homes. However, research by Dr. David Walton shows that he is also a director of several other companies, one of which, Chartnell Ltd, is late in filing its accounts and is proposed to be struck off by Companies House. A post in the  London Gazette in September suggested that the company in question is going to be wound up under the terms of the Insolvency Act 1986.
	I was able to get hold of copies of the minutes of the council's executive meeting of 24 July, when it was agreed to sell the land in question. No mention was made of the widespread public opposition. A discussion took place regarding alternative forms of funding, including lottery funding, but misleading statements were made by the officers in question. A Councillor Llewellyn, who is part of the executive of Derwentside district council, questioned the officers and asked whether they would try to get lottery funding to improve the park. According to the minutes, the acting head of leisure advised
	that there is a limited number of funds for ground work and less opportunities for local authorities to apply.
	That is patently untrue. The Heritage Lottery Fund's Parks for People scheme, which opened applications this year, is intended to include major capital works and is specifically tailored towards applications from local authorities. Its guidance notes say that it expects most applications to come from local authorities. In light of that, the comments of the acting head of leisure clearly misled the councillors who took this decision. This week, I was grateful to receive from Shaun Walsh of the Big Lottery information about not only this fund but the excellent work that the lottery has done to fund other parks around the country. I therefore question the validity of any decision taken by the council on the basis of misleading information from a senior officer. That must prompt the question that alternative forms of funding were available but were not put forward to councillors. The head of leisure's claim that no other form of funding was available was clearly untrue. This must be investigated, and I have written to the district auditor to that end. The objections of local people were completely ignored, to such an extent that I would argue that this represents maladministration.
	Unfortunately, that is not the only aspect of the Derwentside district council's behaviour that has left my constituents wondering what planet it inhabits. I was concerned that the council's bias towards the scheme, and the fact that it stands to gain financially, made it difficult for councillors to make any impartial decisions when the matter came before the development control committee. In August, I wrote to the Secretary of State to request that the planning application be called in, given the controversial nature of the development and the clear regional interest for the future of the park. Under the criteria governing call-ins, it is stated that cases to be called in may include those which
	give rise to substantial regional or national controversy.
	The proposed building on View Lane park has led to a lot of regional controversy. It has been featured in local newspapers including  The Northern Echo and  The Journal and on BBC local radio and Durham FM. The world-respected naturalist, Professor David Bellamy, has also made clear his concerns about the development.
	The proposed development appears to be in direct conflict with planning policy guidance note 17, which states:
	Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements.
	No evidence has been put forward by Mistal Homes or Derwentside district council to support the view that the land in question is surplus to requirements. PPG17 also states:
	Parks, recreation grounds, playing fields and allotments must not be regarded as 'previously-developed land'.
	In spite of that, the planning application describes the site as brownfield. Derwentside district council has confirmed that it regards the terms brownfield and previously developed as meaning the same thing. The application was therefore not made in accordance with PPG17. I wrote to the Government office for the north-east on the subject, but unfortunately it did not agree to a call-in. That was a great disappointment to my constituents and to me. I was disappointed by the Government office's arrogant attitude; I expected it to give me its reasons for refusing to call in the application, but it did not.
	As might have been expected, my concerns about Derwentside district council's ability to make an impartial decision on the scheme were well founded, because on 12 October, the council rubber-stamped the decision to grant itself planning permission for the site. The council was intent on taking View Lane park away from my constituents, and that has raised a number of questions about the council's efficacy. It has failed properly to consult local people and officers deliberately misled councils about lottery funding to improve the park. There was a failure to check the business background of Mistal Homes, a disregard of local people's views, and a failure to understand the park's importance to the people of Stanley, and the council has shown an inability to grasp the fact that the proposal does not fit with planning policy. That is a litany of failures, and I unreservedly condemn the council for the way in which it handled events.
	I have been raising concerns about Derwentside district council's conduct in respect of planning matters for some time, and in the past I have asked for an investigation. It has been brought to my attention that the chairman of the development control committee and the leader of the council hold pre-meetings before the planning committee meets, to decide what they will do. The leader of the council is on the planning committee, and I am told that he moves every single recommendation to the planning committee. Two weeks ago, that resulted in the spectacle of planning permission being granted for a development on green belt land, on a site owned by a fellow member of the planning committee, despite the fact that officers produced a strongly worded report, saying that the application should be rejected. That is the behaviour of a banana republic, rather than what we would expect from the open, transparent democracy in the UK.
	I have written to the Government office for the north-east, asking for an investigation into planning matters. I suggest to the Minister that the way in which the council deals with planning matters seriously needs investigating. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not feel able to intervene in the case. That highlights the weaknesses and shortcomings in the call-in system. There is no third-party right of appeal left to my constituents. Derwentside district council, clearly in collusion with Mistal Homes, has steamrolled ahead with the proposed development on a beautiful, historic park. I note that, in the Queen's Speech, there is a proposal for the reform of the planning system. I suggest that the call-in system be considered, as well as the ability of local communities to appeal planning decisions. I am not referring to every single small item, but to applications affecting areas of major importance, such as View Lane park. I am talking about applications that are of concern not just to one or two people, but to major communities whose interests are being ridden over, roughshod, by arrogant and uncaring councils, such as Derwentside district council.

Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) for raising an important and serious issue. His grave concerns have led him to raise the subject tonight. Later, I shall come to the specific issues that he raised about his constituency, but first I should like to set the policy context, as that may be helpful.
	Good quality green spaces enhance quality of life and contribute to wider Government objectives, such as improved health and community cohesion. Their greatest benefit is to deprived neighbourhoods. To support those aims, we are introducing a number of initiatives to raise the profile of green space and enhance its quality. Those initiatives have already helped to halt the decline in the quality of green spaces in many neighbourhoods. Evidence shows that the quality of parks has improvedfor example, the number of green flag awards continues to increase, with a 32 per cent. improvement on the previous year. There is clear evidence that people are more satisfied with their local parks and green spaces. The proportion of park managers who thought that their spaces had improved or were stable almost doubled to over 80 per cent. between 2000 and 2005.
	More action is required, however, to support the poorest performing parks, often in the most deprived areas. Local authorities must continue to build capacity and skills if they are to take a strategic approach to management, especially by engaging effectively with community users of open spacesa point made by my hon. Friend in relation to children and young people. Local authorities have an opportunity to engage better with constituency Members and the community as a whole. In my own constituency, Danny Crates, the gold medal-winning Paralympian, has assembled a coalition of interests, including the local council and myself as Member of Parliament, to campaign to improve the quality of our local parks and achieve greater usage.
	We must build on success and learn from good practice to achieve a renaissance of parks and green spaces, which benefit everyone in the community. The Department for Communities and Local Government has developed an urban green space action plan and engaged everyone involved. I am loth to use the word stakeholders, but it is appropriate, as everyone with an interest in the subject should be engaged. We want to build on progress and target areas where we need to do better in response to recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee and the findings that the National Audit Office published in March in a report entitled, Enhancing Urban Green Spaces.
	Our land use planning system provides strong protection for all open spaces that local communities need, including our valued public parks. As my hon. Friend said, Government policy is set out in planning policy guidance note 17Open Space, Sport and Recreationaffectionately known as PPG17. My hon. Friend said that PPG17 requires local planning authorities to undertake robust assessments of local communities' existing and future needs for all types of open spaces, including public parks. Existing provision must be audited for quality and quantity. That work will allow local planning authorities to identify deficiencies in provision in their areas and plan to meet them.
	National policy is quite clear: existing open space, including public parks, should not be built on and lost from recreational use unless an assessment has been undertaken by the local planning authority which clearly shows that it is surplus to requirements. Where an assessment is not up to date, or has yet to be completed, the developer must demonstrate through an independent assessment that that is the case. Ultimately, as my hon. Friend said, that assessment is a matter of judgment for the council. PPG17 recognises that some areas of recreational land are of poor quality and are underused, but those factors are not always an indicator of an absence of local need.

Kevan Jones: I am interested in what the Minister is saying, but I can assure her that Derwentside district council did not do any of those things. The Government office should have pulled it up, but it did not do so.

Angela Smith: I shall come to the Government office in a moment. I was trying to make the point that it is for the council to make a judgment on whether the assessment is acceptable. Ultimately, that can be tested in court.
	Councils must look at opportunities to improve the value of poor facilities through, for example, better management or new investment to secure improvements. Any decision that they make on the way forward must be balanced against the quality and quantity of existing open space provision in the local area and the improvements that can be achieved. Again, it is for the local authority to decide whether to fund such improvements, and to decide whether an individual recreational facility can meet an existing local need if investment is applied to adapt or upgrade it.
	Having dealt with the general issues, may I turn to the recent planning decision in my hon. Friend's constituency about which he expressed concern? I understand that Derwentside council granted planning permission for a special needs health centre on a site that formed part of what it considered to be a poor-quality public parka view contested by my hon. Friend. The capital receipts from the disposal of that parkland are intended to fund improvements to the remaining area of the park. I am informed, too, that improvements are to be made imminently to another park in the local area using some of the money from the sale.

Kevan Jones: indicated dissent.

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend shakes his head, but that information was given to the Department and to the Government office. I am sure that he will understand that I am unable to discuss specific planning cases and planning decisions, as they may be subject to review by the courts and, in that event, planning aspects of a case could still in due course come to the Secretary of State for decision on appeal. However, I can make the general point that it is the Secretary of State's general approach not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so for reasons of national importance. Local planning authorities are normally best placed to make decisions relating to their own areas, and it is right that they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly with the minimum of interference. The Government do not set standards for local authorities to follow in that regard. However, one of the things that would have been looked at would have been objections. I understand that Sport England made no objection to the proposals

Kevan Jones: rose

Angela Smith: I shall just finish this point before I give way to my hon. Friend. I know that he is eager to intervene on me.
	The information that has been given to the Government office is that Sport England made no objection to the proposals. Furthermore, the council has exceeded the standards suggested by the National Playing Fields Association relating to the amount of green space in a given area. Despite strong local feeling, the Secretary of State did not assess that as an issue of national or regional importance. It would be exceptional for the Secretary of State to intervene.

Kevan Jones: Sport England did complain; and, in support of the argument that there was sufficient open space in the area, the council put forward the example of King's Head field, but it clearly did not tell the Government office that it had already designated that area for development, either for sale or for the site of a new school.

Angela Smith: These are all matters that the council should take into account before making a decision. I am concerned that my hon. Friend's assertions contradict the information that appears to have been given to the Government office, and I will look into those matters for him. It remains the case, however, that it would be exceptional for the Secretary of State to call in a planning decision in such an area.
	My hon. Friend has made genuinely helpful comments on this matter to the Secretary of State, but the judgment was made that it really was not a national issue in which my right hon. Friend felt that she could intervene and take the matter into her own hands to decide. Now that the council has taken its decision, the question of intervention no longer arises, other than the possibility of an interested party seeking a review of the decision in the courts. I observe that simply as a fact, not to express an opinion on the merits of the case.
	I am of course sorry that my hon. Friend and some of his constituents are gravely disappointed with the decision, but I hope that, regardless of it, he will accept that such a matter should be decided by a local council. Ultimately, the role of the council is to make a judgment on the quality of park provision, set against the need for a special needs health centre. The council made its judgment on the basis of a trade-off of resources that the development could release to upgrade the rest of the park and other open spaces in its area. Although it had to consider the national policy framework that I have set out, the decision was rightly one for the council to make. It would not have been consistent with our wider vision for local government, set out in the White Paper last month, for us to take over an essentially local matter to be decided by people in London.
	I understand the intensity of local feeling expressed by my hon. Friend this evening, but I hope that he will accept that there are cases on which it is rightly within the remit of local authorities to make the decisions, and that it is not the Secretary of State's role to intervene in the planning process. Of about 650,000 applications a year, only about 100 are called in by the Secretary of State. A very strict test has to be applied before a case is called in, and they are called in only in exceptional circumstances. Having said that, I acknowledge the strongly held views of my hon. Friend and his constituents on the council's decision. He has raised issues which, although outside the planning system, give him cause for concern. They include the quality of the information on which the decision was based.
	Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government cannot override a decision that has already been taken by the council, and it would be wrong to comment on what my hon. Friend has said this evening without obtaining more details. Many of the issues that he has raised are not actually planning issues, even though they involve his grave concerns about a planning decision. They are wider and more serious than that. We will consider how the matters can be investigated in a way that will satisfy my hon. Friend and his constituents, because serious allegations have been made about the council's conduct.
	My hon. Friend mentioned seeking redress or an investigation from the district auditor. It may be possible for some of the issues that he wants to refer to be examined by the Standards Board as well. I make no comment or judgment on the allegations; I am merely offering advice on what my hon. Friend may consider an appropriate way in which to proceed.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Given the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), does the Minister accept the need for more scrutiny and monitoring of council decisions on planning? We might wish to give the Government office, or some other body in the regions, the role of checking the quality of decision making.

Angela Smith: It is always difficult to define the quality of decision making. When we agree with a decision we may think that the quality of decision making is good, and when we disagree we may think it is bad. In my opinion, however, the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham were not about the quality of decision making but about some of the information provided which led to the making of decisions, and about how the process was conducted. I hope that my suggestions will prove helpful; no doubt my hon. Friend will return to me if they do not.
	I want to make two points about the Government office. My hon. Friend said that he did not feel that he had been given reasons. The reasons that were given were standardfor instance, that it was not appropriate for the Secretary of State to interfererather than being based on the merits or otherwise of the case.
	Howeverand I apologise to my hon. Friend for thisit would have been helpful if the Government office had contacted him sooner, although I am not convinced that it was entirely the Government office's fault. I believe that my hon. Friend contacted the Government office on 25 August and that it then sought further information from the council, which took a number of weeks to arrive. I am sure that the council did its best to convey the information to the Government office as quickly as possible, but it did not arrive until the first week of October. The Government office then contacted my hon. Friend within a week. I appreciate that he received the information after the decision had been made by the council, although it had not yet been implemented.
	It would have been helpful for my hon. Friend to know beforehand that, as the guidelines make clear, this is not a matter that would normally have been called in by the Secretary of State. I am sorry that the process took so long. I believe that some of the issues were beyond the Government office's control, but I also believe that we should look into the possibility of giving Members advice on the likelihood of a decision being called in, and clarifying the position as a matter of urgency.
	I thank my hon. Friend for initiating the debate. He has raised some serious issues, a number of which fall outside the sphere of planning. I hope that the information I have given tonight has dealt with the policy context, and has helped my hon. Friend to find a way of ensuring that some of the matters he has raised are addressed.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.